Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12107 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
<snip>
> No. They chose to tell us that it was limited. Larry mentioned elsewhere
> something I had forgotten, but is phenomenally relevant. When Lego re-released
> cypress trees in a bulk pack, they knew full well that it would be a limited run
> and that the mold would be destroyed afterwards. But they didn't tell us. And
> they suffered a great deal of flak for that lack of warning. I expect the same
> would be true with the ship, if AFOLs attempted to order one a month after it
> was released only to discover that it was out of stock and never to be re-issued
> (again, "if" matters).
I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch
Larry and Dave.
>
> They told us because they believed we should know. Not because they were stating
> a policy that the set would never come again. If you can prove otherwise, I'd
> love to see it.
>
> > The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> > kept their word.
>
> No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
> to give.
As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that
at the time were perfectly correct. Those that can adapt to changes evolve--we
should be supporting TLC in this endeavour wholeheartedly due to the simple fact
that they are doing something completely right for their financial side, as well
as for the AFOL community. But nope, we're here griping about semantics and
misread or misinterpreted events and calling on 'morals'--230ish posts going
'round and 'round.
I once sent an e-mail to a good friend that was posting in a thread akin to
this, here on LUGNET. He was trying valiantly to 'talk sense' to someone else
and, to an outsider, it seemed the discussion was getting nowhere--multitude of
posts restating and rehashing the points, but no movement.
I once heard a phrase from West Wing--"He won't get off the stage until he gets
off the stage." I sent that in the e-mail to my friend, with the intent that,
even though I completely agreed with his side of the issue, that the other side,
being immovable, wasn't worth the effort.
Of course, this goes contrary to my other idea that "bad things happen when good
people don't speak up", so I'm at a loss as to what I'm going to do. It's
apparent to me that Ken thinks he's fully in the right, contrary to the facts as
I see them.
So I add another post :)
> > > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > > decision part of a negative trend.
> >
> > The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> > have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> > a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
>
> I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
> is a part of one.
>
> DaveE
Bingo. But even if you believe it was an issue, I'm all for a healthy discourse
about it. 200+ posts may be a good time where all people just let it go. I'm
not convinced that Ken is right, and it's apparent that Ken isn't convinced that
we are. So where does that get us at the end of the day?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
