 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I must say I am very disappointed. I knew Lugnet has been going downhill for some time, but this just confirmed my fears. When the administrator of the site engages in the same bickering that she comdemns that shows lack of proper leadership. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
While I don't know enough to comment on TLC presence at Lugnet, I can say if I got treated this way, I would shy away from posting/dealing with Lugnet too. One cannot treat folks in a hostile, suspicious manner and expect them to be overjoyed to (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
Suz, I'd appreciate an answer (too). --Bill. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO - Small shop horror story
|
|
(...) See if you can bend the ear of a reporter who deals with this sort of issue. LEGO prides themselves on great customer service, i.e. public relations. If LEGO is brought to task publically for this kind of behavior which so dramatically favors (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?)
|
|
Todd, Dan, etc.: This user, "LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> is engaging in personal attacks. Please disable her access until she is ready to apologize for this wholly inappropriate response. XFUT: lugnet.admin.general (Suz: You have lost the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) How is this any better than having the message appear in the other group? On the web interface, it looks the same - the list of messages in the thread, when viewed from the other group, includes the official LD message. If you allow this type (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
"LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> skrev i meddelandet news:GxpBMz.4q4@lugnet.com... (...) You may be right, Suz, and you may be wrong... The way you've handled this doesn't seem very mature to me... The issue should have been kept in private e-mail, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I think the initial intent was to keep from being "strongarmed" by Lego into actually being a real commercial force. IE, ad banners, ONLY pro-Lego propaganda (no flames on TLC's business decisions, etc, like juniorization qualms), etc. Also, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I meant that it seems, in retrospect, as though TLC has done so much taking and so little giving. That tends to makes me feel uneasy from time to time. (...) As I understand it, it has always been important to TLC that it not sponsor (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Todd, isn't the very existance of Lugnet a de facto advertisement for Lego, and isn't that a good thing? I mean, everyone here is a Lego consumer, by definition. AFOL: Adult Friend Of Lego. We all buy Legos. We all like building with Legos. We (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
