 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
i agree completely. i didnt get to see the set info before it was canceled, so i dug around and got it from a confidentail source. This is outragues and i think TLG needs to stop overreacting. ps if you want the set info.. .email (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Clarrification needed
|
|
Todd, Is this section for debate about how Lego and LD are working with the consumer? Or should all that be moved to .debate? I was wondering because I posted a large opinion piece about LD and "recent events" into .debate. Bryan (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) reading (...) Ooh, mabey they'll cancel the M****** T* M*** like sets and make pirats!!! NICK #:^A (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even worse, they didn't even ask us. They asked the admin of the site to remove the posts. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Exactly. What, precisely, is the point of telling us not to talk about it? The sets might get cancelled? The prices might change? I think anyone reading this information knows that might happen. Competitors might get the info? Uh, so? I'm sure (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Either way, the problem is at Target. Once it's out, it's news. Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this. It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical ones who *care* about stuff like (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, Lego asked Todd not to publish information they consider "confidential", and he agreed to not do that. You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not if they can then push Mega Bloks more and make up for it.... (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Which again would cause them to loose sales/profit? In the UK there is a phrase "cut your nose off to spite your face" - that is what target would be doing if they even deliberatelly reduced lego sales by 1%. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) This cuts both ways, Target can't NOT sell Lego at all or they will lose sales too. However they can deemphasize it or cut shelf space for it (which seems to be happening at Target and Kmart at least) ++Lar (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose sales for TLG. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming December release... This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Apple's quiet crackdown began more than two years ago. Heads rolled, because they leaked bogus information that was planted to detect the leak. Apple may have gotten "better publicity" for last month's crackdown on photos of "the cube", but it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Me too. But in this case, *Target* is the source of the leak. At this point, it's fair game. The only issue that comes into it for me is the one of respect for Lego. Out of respect for them, I personally will avoid posting data that I might (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
