 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) The end justifies the means? (...) If their intent wasn't so then why did they present it as so? (...) If this wasn't part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) How did you get "ends justify the means" out of that? Wouldn't "ends justify the means" imply that it was their intent all along to lie to us? Isn't that precisely NOT what I said? (...) They didn't. You seem to think they did, though. I admit (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. They said it through Jake, SHO, and press releases. Kind'a hard to misread that statment. (...) If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I don't see why you keep going back to this. What they said was true. There WERE 10,000 available publically. Or, 10,000 via S@H. It's possible Maersk made some available to the public, I guess. But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue, I (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Because that is what they said and words mean things. (...) "If" doesn't much matter as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a limited set. The new color (that they took back) doesn't matter as that was to be a diffrent (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:I9GHGE.1z3u@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) be (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Where is this press release you refer to? I looked for a copy of the press release on LEGO.com was unable to (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Yeah, but what they said was true. "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home." It *WAS* a small run, and it *WAS* limited to 14K, and 10K *DID* go to S@H. Please point out the exact error in the phrase, (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure it qualifies as an actual "press release", but what I think we've been referring to is Jake's post on Lugnet: (URL) the post on 1000steine, which supposedly had very similar content: (URL) almost vaugely remember this set being on (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) we've (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts are what Ken is referring to as (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch Larry and Dave. (...) As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that at the time were (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone (excluding (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up. SNIP "If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing (...) I really don't get all of these u-turns in the name of whatever but since you bring it up "IF" Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than anywhere. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) 230 proves that it's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. This is another bad decision that will alienate more customers and financialy they can not afford to be doing so. With a little thought a new supply of (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE" (...) Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey did. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Why did reps form TLC state that it was 'the last chance'? Did they do it because they were marketing a limited set as a collector item (a la numbered Santa Fe), or was the 'last chance' only due to a limitation of coloured Maersk (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision making?' Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer quality product and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) This is laughable. It would be near impossible for a company to make a press release disappear. When comapnies issue press releases they go out over the wire and news sources pick them up. So if LEGO did remove a copy of a press release form (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
|
(...) I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate from those less (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
|
(...) I was referring to the direct kock-offs of TLC sets, and I apologize for inadvertently lumping all 'building brick' competitors into the same mold. (...) The issue for me is that they may have to take, or already have taken, this course of (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
|
(...) That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X" against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against Best-Lock. I (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
|
(...) I thought we already HAD an AFOL who was a lawyer... but he quit and went on to be a LLCA model builder. :-) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
|
(...) That's true. Of course, the LEGO v MegaBloks suits are somewhat different from LEGO v Shifty/Brick, since LEGO's beef with MegaBloks involves the specific design of the studs-n-tubes interlocking system and the "look" of the 2x4 brick, whereas (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Laughable that their web sit periodicaly changes? You'll note that the link you provided does not cover every press realease ever released. That does not mean that it did not exist. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping. As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your twisting things (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would mean nothing (...) Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for as long as they have been. (...) While this is the view of the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) It is you who are twisting the facts to suit your flawed opinion. In my country, as well as the US of A, by law a party is onnocent until proven guilty. You have as yet to prove TLC's guilt in this case. Since you have continuously deleted all (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion. (...) I think it might be... (...) No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders. A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Dave, as you write yourself, you have stated things over and over again. But you have not convinced me. And I have not seen a single pro-TLC posting within the German AFOL community. They are obviously tending towards Ken's opinion as I do. (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Except Lego is not publicly owned. It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
SNIP (...) SNIP (...) I don't know about your country but here that only applies in a court of law. I am certainlt alowed to come to a decision based on the facts at any time I wish. (...) Ok so it's not in the terms of use but I've read it (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Hey Ben, I have, and he has, and we all have stated our POV over and over again. The thing is, the points that Ken made were refuted by others, as well as myself, in this very thread. These points were not addressed but summarily deleted, and (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) You are correct in saying that it is not publically owned, but why do you say 'except'? It makes no difference. There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make a profit. (...) Is it? How do you know? Cheers Richie (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(URL) (...) "privately owned" (...) "decreasing wealth" ROSCO (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Geesh Ross, put the ruler away, someone might get hurt. Bad memories of overly strict teachers with nasty looks on their faces. Janey "C- Red Brick" (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Shouldn't that be "Here come the grammar police"? :) DaveE (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both non publicly owned and privately owned.) I'm not sure why I spelled it 'publically', though. Must be that speech to text software acting up again. ;-) (...) It would (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Who polices the grammar police? (was Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update))
|
|
(...) And since when is 'watchout' a word? ;-) Cheers Richie Dulin (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) A debate is an exchange of FACTS in order to prusuade the other party to your point of view. The facts that you seem to be dissapointed that I stick to are Lego said this was the "last chance" to buy Maersk blue and there (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Thanks for defending the "non Public part" As for "increasingly less wealth" it was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for years and the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) No worries. However, you did make the claim that "A company exists to make a profit". The fact that Lego is a private company is neither here to there, a company does not exist to make a profit. And yet that's what you claimed. You didn't lie, (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Yes, LEGO said that. But some people are confusing a "statement of fact" with a "promise". They are different. You are of course welcome to continue to fervently believe LEGO lied to you, and to continue to believe that all statements by the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) We are not talking about a business decision. Bley was a business decision. In this case they chose the words "Last chance" and "Very limited production run" as part of their adveritizing. Since this is how they choose to present (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) we're splitting hairs a bit however my statement about their wealth is based upon suppositon. One can only afford to loose so much and if it were not an issue they would not be worried about maintaining control.-Ken (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
