LEGO Direct : 4580


LEGO Company / LEGO Direct / 4580

Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

Jake, Why are you answering people's questions on FBTB, but not LUGNET? I ask because the lugnet.lego.direct group was created for open dialogue, yet LD's posts are now rare and limited to marketing announcements. -Suz Suzanne Rich LUGNET Admin (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tamyra Teed

Not to be nasty, though if I were LD or Lego, I'd be a little miffed about being controlled as to where we can post.. and only able to post from official Lego addresses.. and if FBTB is giving them free access to answer anywhere, I don't blame them (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —John Rudy

I'll second Tamy here. LUGNET has become downright beligerent in it's treatment of TLG Staffers. Restriction is unfair, and tantamount to segregation. "You work at LEGO, so you can only use these drinking fountains..." This isn't fair to TLG or the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Matt Hein

In lugnet.lego.direct, John Rudy writes: [snipped,] [source message] (...) I guess I'll third Tamy here... This is an interesting situation, butnot one that seems to be overly long and complex. In simplicity, I think there's one soultion to this (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Troy Cefaratti

(...) In my opinion this is the key point moreso then limiting where TLC employees can post. I can understand the limits. I believe it was established so that it could be determinied if a person was posting AS an employee of TLC opposed to just (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Thomas Avery

(...) I think you're right. Besides, quite often when someone from TLC posts something important, it's quickly forwarded to the appropriate groups (if necessary) by Lugnet readers. It's also nice to know that all posts from TLC's employees (about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Isn't it against the rules to do so, though? Or is it just against the rules for Jake to ask in his post that someone do it but OK if someone figures out that it needs doing on their own? I'm admittedly confused about it. (...) There really is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Thomas Avery

(...) I dunno, but I don't think it's too inappropriate: (URL)There really is no reason that it should "go with the territory"... FBTB (...) I don't know, I don't frequent the FBTB forums too often. I don't have a feel for FBTB readers. We're acting (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

(...) I really have to agree, limiting where they can post was one of the absolute most unwise policies instituted here. It makes the newsgroups extremely unwelcome to Lego representatives, and why would we do this after complaining quite vocally (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mike Walsh

"Jeff Stembel" <aulddragon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Gx9EIE.L17@lugnet.com... (...) about (...) official (...) anywhere, I (...) absolute (...) complaining (...) so (...) then (...) face by (...) forum (...) forums, (...) love to (...) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Noeckel

(...) --- (...) All good and valid points, but I do understand and sympathies with Suz. Because it really seams as though LD is simply using Lugnet as a marketing forum to test their products and promote their objectives. I may be new, but it didn’t (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jim Green

I think the reason Jake is more apt to respond to the questions on FBTB is due to the nature of that forum: it's like a reading time for the children where he is treated like Superman. The preadolescents dote on Jake. Also, from my observation of (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll take that bet... how much did you want to lose? (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ahui Herrera

(...) WOW... and then I wonder why Lego only post 'marketing-related' stuff here (lugnet). We (adults) can WORSE than the kids on FBTB. Over there when LD says it can't answer, the general felling is okay we understand. Here, if Lego doesn't answer (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Deidre Rushton Brumby

(...) There is a big difference between _saying_ they can't answer a particular question and not responding at all. It's the "not responding at all" bit that seems to cause a lot of the grief here on Lugnet. Deidre drb@tasmail.com (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark Williams

(...) Look up the definition of toy (a thing of little importance, trifle). Even if we limit the discussion of Lego items to children, this definition is far from adequate considering the educational value the items provide. Lego items are a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) I'd disagree. I think we've seen a lot in the last couple of years that indicates that Lego is reaching out to the AFOL market. Bulk ordering, Sculptures, Legends, specials like the Super Chief and the Rebel Blockade Runner, involvement with (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark Williams

(...) First of all, divide the company into it's respective divisions. Even though we refer to Lego as one company, it's divisions aren't necessarily managed as one company. Lego Direct is a distinct entity from the Lego Stores, etc. (It wouldn't (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) As a regular poster both here and on FBTB (I know, Ahui, you regularly read FBTB too) I would disagree with the premise that Lugnet is for adults and FBTB for children. I recently posted a poll over there as to whether people preferred (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

What Jim has stated was done so perfectly that it doesn't need any "me too"s, but here is my total agreement with his words anyway. And I think that the administrative reasons for creating this newsgroup and also limiting official TLC access to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Kerry Raymond

I think LD are often silent for some fairly obvious reasons. Firstly, we LUGnetters don't seem to agree on too many things, so I don't think we send very clear messages about what we want to Lego Direct. Some people want more re-releases of Classic (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

I don't necessarily disagree with anything Kerry said either. I guess the point is to drop the pretense that a dialogue exists -- if TLC/Lego Direct people post here at all it is 99% certain that it is strictly for the purpose of furthering some (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Bryan Kinkel

Who knows, maybe the quiet from Lego Direct has nothing to do with real or imagined friction from AFOL's, restrictive posting policies on LUGNET, pestering questions about the product lines and corporate policy, etc. I just figured they have been (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Saupé

All I really have to add here (since the initial thread isn't my place to answer) is a reply to the notion that I run a site for kids - last time I checked FBTB viewership was 3/4 adult with an average age of 24. We do have quite a few kids in the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

Jake, I'd appreciate an answer. -Suz Suzanne Rich LUGNET Admin www.lugnet.com (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

I think it is precisly these types of posts that keep them away. Many people post expecting answers *right now*, often on things they may not be able to respond to. I think everyone needs to give them some breathing room. I also think they should be (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Courtney

(...) Very good points, Jeff. I wasn't going to hop in on this thread myself to be totally honest. It disturbs me in many ways. But at this point, I have something I really want to get out. The attitude posters and administrators on this site (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

(...) Current policy already allows this. Jake, for instance, is using his unofficial account right now. And conversations similar to the recent '20 Questions' have always been allowed on LUGNET. LEGO employees are welcome everywhere on LUGNET. The (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

Suz: Is their absence especially irritating because they have used references to Lugnet for certain marketing practices (like the Mania Magazine, I think it was), and that probably without permission? So they trade on the Lugnet name but don't (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —William R. Ward

Suz, I'd appreciate an answer (too). --Bill. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

I do want to answer this, but it'll be long and right now I'm exhausted.. I will. I promise. -Suz (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Suz Q&A was:[Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?] —

Suzanne D. Rich

Here are some short answers, for now.. (...) no. (...) I didn't disclose anything while I worked for TLC (1996-1999), but it's not a secret anymore. I worked for R&D. LEGO Futura, Boston office. LFB's job was to come up with cool, innovative LEGO (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.people)

Re: Suz Q&A was:[Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?] —Richard Marchetti

(...) I guess I meant: what did you learn from being on the *inside* that informs your attitudes about the company overall and/or how to deal with them? (...) I'm not sure why the parent company has no relationship to the question, but I think we'd (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.people)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Dave Schuler

(...) But Lego Direct didn't leap onto LUGNET willy-nilly without first having reviewed the types of discussions that go on here. Anyone (and certainly an outreaching department of a multi-billion dollar company) could have predicted the way that (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ben Roller

(...) I don't know about that. After seeing Lego's lastest offering, it seems that the clone brands are where they're getting ideas now. Ha ha, only serious. Ben Roller P.S. Ok, I need some advice here. At this point I'm not intending to talk to TLC (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Jake McKee

In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes: Suzanne (and All), Sorry about the delay in responding. I have been swamped this week, and wanted to run a few things past a few people, Brad especially (who is out of the office on a trans-European (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Matthew Gerber

(...) Hear, hear! Matt (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

RE: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark & Milissa Millère

Jake, Thanx for a well thought out response. I hope this is the beginning of what everybody is looking for! I also hope Admin (aka Suz) makes the necessary changes to support this. (assuming this is what she is looking for) Can we all just get (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make. When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have to make from the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Courtney

Jake - Excellent response. I believe this helps us all understand a bit more where LEGO Direct is coming from. I sincerely hope the LUGNET administrators revisit the policy towards limiting official posts to just one newsgroup heirarchy. I believe (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Christopher Snead

In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes: (snip) Just a few things I wanted to express... First off, I have extreme respect and appreciation for what the Lugnet administrators have done. I'm sure the job is a thakless one, and I wanted you all to (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) you (...) Couldn't agree more... (...) [SNIP] (...) numerous requests to change this policy (...) After so many postings have been asking for that change, I just wanted to give my vote for the 'status quo'. TLC can never be part of the AFOL (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ross Crawford

(...) No problems! Thanks for your response! [snip] (...) One suggestion I'd make - to respond to such questions, please just create a new thread in .lego.direct, referencing the original post (and quoting any pertinent text to make things clearer (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —René Hoffmeister

Hello, I'm wondering why it's not possible to let TLC post coloured if the topic is TLC-related (like announcements or official answers) and uncoloured (like we all) if the topic is normal discussion between us. This works fine at 1000steine.de, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ross Crawford

(...) readable by NNTP & mail, for which colour isn't doable, as there is little or no control over the client. I see no reason, however, why posts from official LEGO users cannot have an official LEGO sig attached (by the server) and maybe even a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tom Stangl

(...) Actually, the code would have to have a few more rules, but I'm sure Dan or Todd could whip something up in minutes. Code basics: If <sender> contains <@lego.com> and <group> is not <.direct>, append header/footer Said header/footer (maybe (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Official posts at a glance —

Todd Lehman

(...) Cool idea -- nice to be able to distinguish visually. We're actually going to try something a little different than coloring the topic/subject title... an idea from long ago: on the web interface, we're going to display an itty bitty red (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !

Re: Official posts at a glance —Tim Courtney

Oh wow nifty :-) -Tim (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official posts at a glance —Thomas Stangl

Of course, this does no good whatsoever for people who use newsreaders (you know, those things for reading, uh, news). Have you looked further into appending footers/headers when they want to make an official announcement? (...) -- Tom Stangl (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Official posts at a glance —

Todd Lehman

(...) ya, it's a web-only thing. (...) Yes and no... Yes, thought about it a bit. No, didn't write any code toward that. IMHO, anyone sophisticated enough to be using a real newsreader is also sophisticated enough to recognize an @lego.com address (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes: [...] (...) Thank you, Jake. I just wanted to confirm my suspicion.[1] Such a lack of maturity from one who's actions reflect on The LEGO Company is very disappointing. But, your 'using' of this community is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Paul Hartzog

ouch. I saw this and was so appalled I just had to reply. I don't know Jake, but to see Suzanne make assumptions about his character and his motivations is shocking. The tenor of Jake's verbage is clear and professional. By contrast, the tenor of (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps so, but only because the representatives of the fandom have made it at times difficult to remain fans (of this particular interactive medium, at least). If Jake is truly worried that AFOL's will object to such LD comments as "we can't (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Duane Hess

(...) I don't know Suz.... It seems like it wouldn't take much for TLC to return to their activity level in the early days of LUGNET, ei. no communication back to the community. In the early days we knew that TLC employees were reading our posts and (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Courtney

(...) Suzanne - As someone who has worked with Jake on many occasions, I find this post gravely offensive and an uncalled for personal attack. In all my experience with him, before and after taking the position at LEGO Direct, he has been nothing (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Saupé

Sad. To see the supposed 'Center of the LEGO Online Community' adopt such tactics and immaturity over an issue that should have been dealt with in email in the first place shows one thing clearly to me: Everyone who has been telling me that LUGNET (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.starwars) !

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? (everyone’s overreacting!) —Richard Noeckel

~O.K. now everyone’s overreacting! Lugnet is looking out for it’s best interests… Lego is looking out for it’s best interest… And I'm sure FBTB is doin’ the same thing too… But before anybody does anything rash lets just take a step back and reflect (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? (everyone’s overreacting!) —Geordan Hankinson

In response to your comment Richard, Although harsh, I think that it is fair for Tim to be disgusted. Tim approached the situation diplomatically, (even though the intial comment was not intended at him, it still affected him and his website a great (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

I have mixed feelings about this whole thread, but the one person that comes closest to expressing views I can agree with is Ben. I do think there is a gap that does and probably should exist between "fans" and an official company person. I think (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

(...) Why? I see no reason to differentiate between two people simply because one had the luck and skill to get a job at the same place we would all love to work for. It seems to me that an employee of Lego is more likely to be an AFOL than not, and (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Deering

EWOK!!!...!!! (...) 8< YUBB YUBB >8 (...) 8< YUBB YUBB >8 (...) 8< YUBB YUBB >8 (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Todd Lehman

(...) I know that I personally harbor a fear of LUGNET becoming a platform for free advertising for TLC. I don't really know what harm would befall the community from that, but it seems somehow wrong. I don't know how to express this fear (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Benjamin Medinets

(...) One thing I seen....is the apparent lack of "care" TLC has really put forth in north america. There still is a wide gaps in quality products between Europe and North America. Sure its nice to have 2 fulfillment centers, but why does one have (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —David Eaton

(...) As far as these types of things go, I think the response we've gotten from TLC is that Europe's just a better/more loyal consumer than North America. I remember (I think at BrickFest '01? Maybe a different time...) Brad talking about stores in (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ronald Vallenduuk

"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:GxpK80.59p@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) objectives (...) </snip> I've one answer to this unfair treatment: 3033 Duq (from europe) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Not anymore you don't. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Benjamin Whytcross

(...) As opposed to the "over-care" of the past decades? I think what you consider "lack of care" is actually the LEGO company realising that there are markets outside the US, and that if they don't stop being a US-centric company, they will end up (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Benjamin Medinets

(...) Well that is one approach to looking at it...yes for several...errr... many years North America (US and Canada) was spoiled. I'll have to agree somewhat to the approach you are taking. I don't disagree with a world point of view. My qualms is (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jacob Arnold

(...) <snip> (...) <snip> Why should Lego have to bribe us with donations and unprofitable products? Allowing Lego to post here doesn't seem like bending over backwards to me. Lego's reps are restricted to posting in a forum where all they hear are (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that you two have been tremendously good at thinking into the future and setting things up right to avoid all kinds of potential pitfalls. But in this case, what harm could crop up that you could not remedy if you just let them post (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Todd Lehman

(...) 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? —Kevin Knoot

(...) 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)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —David Eaton

(...) 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? —Mark Jordan

(...) Don't let your irrational fears hold you back. Define them and deal with them. I work in a big business. The objective is to avoid biting the hand that feeds, avoid killing the golden goose etc. I think you can trust TLC to generally respect (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

(...) I am disappointed in you, Suz. Your post was rude and uncalled for, and Jake deserves an apology. It is also a prime example of why the level of interaction between the community and Lego has dropped recently. How can you expect anyone to post (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Noeckel

Interesting… How you presume to know the intricacy of the situation at hand between two individuals!?! And what is even more fascinating is how you endeavor to draw judgment and call for an “apology” from this individual. And all this regarding a (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

(...) I don't. I can only respond to what's been made public, and with this issue, a heck of a lot of it has been made public. (...) I can call for an apology because if I were in Jake's position, I would have been quite offended by Suz's post. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —John Rudy

(...) To Suz et All, I, as many of the members of the community, am thoroughly disappointed with your course of action, Suz. Infantile isn't descriptive enough of a word to talk about what you've just done. Not only have you shot yourself in the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Todd Lehman

(...) I'll stay out of the more heated portion of this and let Suzanne reply to the other stuff when she gets a free moment, but I can answer the above portion, at least from my personal viewpoint, by giving links to some previous posts: (4 URLs) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Joel Kuester

(...) To all: this is my last post here, but I feel strongly that this has to be said. Please forgive my bluntness. Suz: I just wanted to say a personal thanks to you for singlehandedly driving the self-proclaimed "friendliest place on the internet" (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Romine

(...) This whole thread has gotten out of hand! This seems to be the point where the "public" communications fall apart. I don't wish to take sides, particularly where we're all assumed to be on the *same* side. For what it's worth, what I see here (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Anders Isaksson

"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)

Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?) —William R. Ward

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: Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?) —Tamyra Teed

And then you turn around and attack Suz personally, I think you should be banned also. All you really needed was your first paragraph.. Tamy (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Terms of Use violation (was Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?) —Benjamin Medinets

(...) Actually Bill Ward is right... as an admin, Suz needs to lead by example. What she posted earlier today was in my opinion very shocking and inappropriate. I have to also look at her flaming policy as of late and "judge her by her own words"... (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Drew Dirschell

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? —Rich Manzo

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? —Anthony Sava

I just had to say something here. I know I'm not a very influencial person around lugnet, and I know I've made a few enemies here. I know that I've opened my mouth and caused a lot of problems here on lugnet, and if the current terms of use had been (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —David Gregory

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded. (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Scott Costello

Wow, I can barely stand the heat from this firestorm. Listen all, bottom line on this site is that it belongs to Todd and Suz, and they are fully entitled to do whatever they chose. It really does not matter what we users think or demand, ultimately (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Matt Hein

In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes: [some snippage here...] (...) Er...I tend to usually avoid these type of posts, and the debate column because I am usually outspoken, but I have to get a say here, and of course, I have a few questions. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tony Kilaras

(...) This is bad. Very, very bad. Suz, this is far more than anybody on lugnet needed to know. Nothing good is going to come from this. (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

(...) In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes: (...) Well, I certainly see that now.. :-( After my posting yesterday, I had to return to my job, where there are no computers. So, not until 6 p.m., when I got home, did I receive my accumulated (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Larry Pieniazek

<snip> That must have been a very tough post to write, Suz. My hat is off to you. Here's hoping for the best going forward. ++Lar (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark Jordan

Suz's post must have been difficult to write. She's right about screwing up, but who here hasn't done something they regret? I have enjoyed LUGNET for years, and have this is my first post. Clearly people are upset by Suz's behaviour, and want to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

(...) I think that's a really good idea. I'll ask Dan and Todd about coding for it. Polls are good because lurkers are apt to participate. And with the member system, it'll be easy to prevent multi-submissions. but of course that means only members (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Hug all 'round! Seriously, thanks, Suz, for your apology post. Hopefully all the heat around this thread will die down soon. Perhaps that post should also be sent directly to Jake? This thread is pretty huge and it might be hard to find in (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Matt Hein

In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes: [quite a thoughtful post] Well, I must say you put a lot of thought into this, but as they say, nobody is perfect. This post must have really taken some time to word, but I commend you for your effort (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeremy Scott

I must say that I couldn't post onto this thread because I know how it feels to be personally attacked by others, though my experience was far less than yours. I innocently posted something, that in my mind was okay, and everyone attcked me, my (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Laura Gjovaag

(...) Wow. That was a very strong post, Suz. I refused to join in the attack on you mostly because I don't have a very good attitude about LEGO myself at the moment, but I was another one who was amazed at your post and wondered. You've shown great (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Kyle Beatty

(...) I try to avoid the 'me too' kind of post, but this is how I feel as well. Thanks for presenting your side of the story and I hope that Lugnet, as a body, can learn a little restraint on the 'reply' button. I'm very sorry that the reactions to (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —William R. Ward

"LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> writes: [...] (...) [...] Thank you for this. I accept your apology and I hope that you can successfully mend the rift with TLC. I am very glad to see your prompt (given the circumstances) reply. I support you and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Jeez. I used to think that the overall tone of lugnet changed the day Todd took a pointed leave of absence too, but I think this is wrong-headed thinking. While Suz doesn't always come across as the friendliest person online -- I recognize (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —John Patterson

I for one do not think that Lugnet changed after Todd left. It is still the great place that it was. I think that all the complaining people should go get out a Lego set and build it. Makes more sense that spending hours worrying that Lugnet is bad. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark de Kock

In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes: [snipped a GoodPost (tm?)] Suz, This was actually the post I've been waiting for. I have been following this thread, wondering what could have made you so angry. You see, I have been around LUGNET for a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —John Patterson

Suz: I don't think you did anything wrong. These people seem to be spring loaded to he pi**ed off position. After all is said and done this is still just a toy and if it is all that important to all these people to get so upset they need to get a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

(...) Things are okay. Jake and Brad will be meeting with Todd and me during Brickfest. We're going to look at things afresh. I'm sure this'll be a good thing. -Suz (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Eric Joslin

(...) Indeed. For the record, it is exactly this kind of immaturity that drove me away from LUGNET in the first place. What immaturity? Not Jake's. I don't trust anyone whose motivation is to sell me something. It's a knee-jerk reaction. He has (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general) !

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Aaron Muhl

I don't know either of these people, but the fact that this discussion is being held out in the open for all of the LUGNET community to watch seems pretty immature to me. Sincerely, Aaron Muhl Lifetime Lego fan 5 Year LUGNET fan Not a fan of this (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't buy this stance. I prefer discussions like this to be held openly. I _like_ the fact that we get to put in our two cents. Todd and Suz are both seriously bright folks, but they just can't think of everything. Why shouldn't we know (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) It is my experience with "message board" systems that some people like to take part in a heated discussion from time to time. When someone posts something which is regarded as foolish by a majority, there are commonly a lot of people who jump (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Aaron West

(...) I know it's your playhouse and you can do how you choose, but you are not being a very good host with responses such as this Suz. You really should follow the posting proceedures regarding comments of this nature and send email to Jake if this (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Todd Lehman

(...) Jake, I'm glad to hear that. We're very interested in that as well. On the one hand, we want to keep the groups as pure and fan-to-fan as possible and remain true to that vision, but on the other hand, we want everyone to enjoy as close (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —William R. Ward

(...) 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? —Ronald Vallenduuk

I've just been reading the best part of this thread, and I must say I'm amazed.... Amazed at the lack of respect for 'The Community' and for The Lego Company. And amazed at the amount of patience from TLC. I honestly do not see why representatives (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Todd Lehman

(...) I would argue that all of the following are examples of marketing messages: (7 URLs) isn't to say that it's abuse in any way. I think it's fine.) Let's just be clear that LEGO *is* indeed here to do direct-to-consumer _marketing_ and sales (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Troy Cefaratti

Perhaps I am missing something here, but isn't this the kind of thing people are asking for? People want to know about new products. People want to have input into what is coming out. Brad and Jake provide this type of info in the posts cited. Sure (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Right, and Todd said it was "fine." Identifying it for what it is and generally sequestering it to a specific forum is probably a good idea. There really isn't a problem here. --Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Just to add my two cents in here. TLC is small-time in comparison to the big-time marketing we do ourselves. Think about it, we speculate on the next release in any given line, we spread around leaked photos of upcoming sets, when they start (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Right, that's the reality of discussing their product lines (of course, some of us also speak very favorably about clone brands too, but whatever). If TLC/Lego Direct were allowed to make "product placement" type comments in different (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Mark Papenfuss

(...) Ouch! Thats quite a negative attitude there. I do not know they would, nor would I think they would. There are some people such as yourself that think everytime they type it comes out as a marketing ploy that is poorly as disguised as an (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Richard Marchetti

Just taking it as a whole... I am not so much anti-TLC as I am pro-fan as far as Lugnet is concerned. I think a lot of you haven't given that idea much thought. As far as being a lego fan myself, let's say a 1 is not much of a fan and a 10 is very (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Jeff Stembel

(...) Okay, what kind of marketing info are you taking about? We've been fairly specific, i.e., mentioning that we like polls, info on new sets, services, and bulk packs, and the like. Do you really not like that? Do you not want input on some of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —William R. Ward

(...) I'm a fan of the product, not the company. My support of TLC as a company is due only to the product itself. I have some serious issues with TLC's choice of products (Jack Stone, Bionicle, etc.) and with some of their business practices (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

50% off RCX at S@H (Canada, and maybe US) —James Brown

(...) RCX 1.0, actually. Even better. :) James (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.market.shopping)

Re: 50% off RCX at S@H (Canada, and maybe US) —James Brown

(...) Well skin me alive and call me luggage! It's both. :) James (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.market.shopping)

Re: 50% off RCX at S@H (Canada, and maybe US) —Dirk Hoff

While in at the Anaheim Imagination Center a week or two ago, I saw a number of RCX bricks available at $69.99. Don't know whether they ship, though. Dirk (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.market.shopping)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Kerry Raymond

(...) Where is this announcement on TLC's site that Mindstorms 1.5 is available for 50% off? I can't see it. All I can see is Mindstorms 2.0 available at the regular price? Kerry (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —

Suzanne D. Rich

(...) I saw it listed in their new 'web specials' area. not sure where else it's made known. Sad to report, it says 'sold out' now. -Suz (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ross Crawford

(...) 'Twas available in US / Canada for a short time - I think the guys in rtlToronto probably cleaned 'em out!! 8?) ROSCO (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Chris Magno

(...) Sorry, Rosco. Project X type events (URL) hard to do with nothing short of 4 rcx's. (grin) Chris Pretend this says something funny (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Cary Clark

In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes: ... (...) While this is probably an unneeded 'me too' post, I was also thinking about what the LEGO-run discussion forum would be like: - Since lego.com's audience is appreciably younger than (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Ronald Vallenduuk

I'm afraid I don't quite agree. "Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:Gxpxys.59@lugnet.com... (...) messages: (...) know about upcoming releases before they're all over the media. (...) posted in the forum. (...) they're going to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup? —Tim Deering

WOOKIE!!!...!!! (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)