 | | 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)
| | | | | | |
