 | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Tamyra Teed
|
| | | Why do people seem to think the site wide posting would mean we get 'spammed' in every group with the marketing stuff? Rules can be made that that has to stay in the L.D group.. just as BST stuff has to stay in B.S.T.. people follow the rules.. why (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Ralph Döring
|
| | | | | (...) I think you´re both right. TLC wouldn´t spam LUGNET if they were allowed to post in any group. BUT: I feel the same way as Ben. LD and/or TLC do not join the discussion or offer to have one. They mostly do some kind of marketing annoucements. (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 'Spammed' probably isn't the right word for it. I am thinking of something less obnoxious and possibly more sinister like "product placement" type marketing. An example: When I saw the Spider-Man movie, there was this protracted moment when (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —John Barnes
|
| | | | | I am not sure that LD or TLC would be quite as badly behaved as people seem to think. Everyone knows Larry sells stuff. (Well, I assume if they are regulars here on lugnet they do, anyhow.) I sell stuff too, and I am personally very sensitive to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | RE: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? —Marco Correia
|
| | | | | | I don't understand why can't we treat LEGO Direct as any other lugnet participant (sellers included). I ask the LUGNET Admins: If I'm a seller (just for the record: I'm not) and I start using lugnet.robotics to *advertise* robotic Parts/Sets/MOC's I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | | (...) Well I'm not a Lego Admin, but if I saw you posting an advertizing in the group (ie Robotics), then I'm sure you will see a professionally worded notice from me or from another user to post your solicitation in the appropriate newsgroup. If (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) I would point out that currently posting any market posting other than an auction posting anywhere within Lugnet is not against the TOS. It is against the clear desires and directions of the admins and the community (so a post or e-mail asking (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | (...) Uh, plenty of individuals do that already. Not everyone checks Peeron or shop.lego.com, and so are not familiar with everything available. I, and a number of others then fill them in. What is wrong with a Lego employee doing the same? (...) If (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Objectively, not much, but at the same time what's the benefit? How many "what's this part from" posts currently go unanswered without the input of TLC employees? In addition, a reasonable concern is that Employee X might say "sure, that Green (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'd disagree. For TLC, we (the online AFOLs) are not the most important buyers, not by a long ways (see your description below of us as a teeny tiny demographic). For the random Bricklink seller, or e-bayer, or whatever, the online AFOLs are (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think perhaps my phrasing was unclear, so I'll restate: The purpose of default LUGNET user's presence on LUGNET is to exchange information in a forum for people who share in the hobby. While it is true that many LUGNET users also sell (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Marco Correia
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, but why not use the same "rules" used to anyone abusing the LUGNET ? i.e. If any TLC employee *OR* any other LUGNETter starts using this resource against the LUGNET spirit, after the 1st warning, should be "banned" for a while. This would (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | TLC participation here part of LD marketecture — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Indeed, TLC's presence here is not simply a fortuitous by-product of the reinvention of LEGO Direct in 1999, but part of the very _marketecture_ of the new LEGO Direct. Acknowledging and participating in fan events -- and hiring people from (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | (canceled) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) "Milton Train Works(tm)" is the proper spelling and capitalization for the brand... (...) All well and good but if you are not looking at my MOCS for sale, you are missing out on a pretty good share of my MOC output these days. So keep an eye (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) The horror, the horror...maybe I'll actually survive being thusly deprived. (...) And we would know this because you managed to post twice to the newsgroup lugnet.lego.direct with essentially irrelevent marketplace material? Or are you just (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Richard, are you seriously claiming that Lar's response to you is "marketing"???? Talk about spiting your face... (...) Hop-Frog, this stance on what is marketing is pretty darn extreme, even for you. James James (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I have no doubt of it. You're not a trainhead. That's not the point though. The point is what I said. If you want (and I am not saying you should or should not, that is your choice) to see what I'm up to creatively, that's where you are going (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
