| |
Here's a snippet from Todd's original post:
>
> We still welcome LEGO here -- that has never changed -- it just became
> apparent yesterday that we would need to reassert and reclarify the
> boundaries. If LEGO officially has issues with these boundaries, they know
> how to use the telephone.
>
> --Todd
Something that Lego (TLC) did "made it apparent" that these boundaries needed
to be reclarified. Well, no one in this thread, except Todd and maybe someone
from TLC, knows what horrible thing happened to force this issue.
I am not a programmer, I am not a Lego employee, and I don't work in a sotre or
in marketing, so I may be 'out of my area of expertise' when adding to this
discussion. But, I have been a collector for a long time, not only of Lego, but
also Matchbox cars. I have never, ever seen any attempt to limit the
information flow from the company whose products we purchase.
Matchbox clubs, including Matchbox USA, which gets nothing financially from
Matchbox, publishes info on upcoming products, and its not labelled 'Info from
the Company', or relegated to a special section. As consumers and collectors of
these products, we should WANT MAXIMAL INFORMATION from these companies. If you
are an Aquazone collector (for instance), wouldn't you want hear about a
special set that was available directly from Lego? I would think the answer is
YES, and that this notice belongs in the Aquazone newsgroup - that is the
appropriate target audience. The target audience is NOT every AFOL.
So, I am going to side with ++Lar and Frank Filz and the others who think this
change (it is a CHANGE, not a 'clarification') is not good. Also, a lot of this
discussion on multiple user identities fails to keep in mind that MOST INTERNET
USERS ARE NOVICES!!!! And a lot of Lego fans are kids. I think it is not that
easy for people who can barely use a browser to figure out everything that is
going on here.
My account: -$0.02
Roy
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| (...) Can you elaborate on what you mean by "sanctity"? I'm sensing that there's some problem here that you're more aware of than some of us. It may be that it's too sensitive to go into, so that's fine if that's the case. But my perception was that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
232 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
|
|
|
|
