 | | 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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. :-) (20 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 (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 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 (20 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" (20 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 (20 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 (...) (20 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 (20 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (20 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, (...) (20 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (20 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
