 | | Re: LEGO... are you out there? Do you care? (WAS: WHY SO LONG ON BULK BRICKS?)
|
|
(...) You have a point. I guess I should really try to make myself understood better, it seems my points are getting lost in this thread. Not sure why, I usually have no trouble making myself understood. My point was... that event though LEGO.com (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | The Lego Website [was: Re: LEGO... are you out there? Do you care?]
|
|
(...) I'll agree that lego.com isn't terribly interesting. . .the only part I might have been interested in was looking at the Castle stuff, which specifically is not viewable without going through a Flash waste-of-time (which doesn't seem to like (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?
|
|
(...) A *sometimes* effective consumer tool. (...) I strongly disagree with this suggestion. I don't think that's a fair move at all. To be completely honest, I recently sent my first email directly to Brad's account and in some ways I wish I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Analogy of a debate: (WAS:Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?)
|
|
(...) You're absolutely right. I don't think they listen. But I do think they read some of the postings to LUGNET. Remember, there's a difference between hearing and listening. I intend to keep talking until they *listen*. Do you know a better way (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?
|
|
(...) I guess we (Lego Community as a whole) need to either: a) boycott Lego or b) everybody flood Brad, and others at Lego Direct (spam their personal mail accounts) with our opinions until they either forward them to the right channels or decide (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO... are you out there? Do you care? (WAS: WHY SO LONG ON BULK BRICKS?)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) But according to your estimate, LEGO.com already gets 10 times the hits of LUGNET. Clearly, it is *the* destination of choice. Doing 10 times better than the nearest competitor would seem to be pretty good, wouldn't it? Cheers (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes: [snip] (...) How do you do this pointing out? Is it more than posting on LUGNET? (I ask because it seems you don't think they listen here, so all these posts would be pointless, right?) [snip] (...) Does (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?
|
|
(...) Mike, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I feel it's only fair to state this: If the LEGO company as a whole doesn't soon pull up its socks, there won't be any LEGO Direct, there won't be any bulk parts and there won't be any more (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO... are you out there? Do you care? (WAS: WHY SO LONG ON BULK BRICKS?)
|
|
(...) The front page of LEGO.com should be updated no less than once a week, and preferably more often. How many of us enjoy CNN.com, or CANOE.com or LUGNET.com because the content changes so regularly? LEGO should make their website *the* (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY SO LONG ON Light Gray?
|
|
(...) basic (...) Most 10 year olds that like Lego would. (I work in a toy store, trust me on that one.) I belive your point was how many parents would buy them for kids. (...) The old service packs were better for that sort of thing. I thought the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
