 | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 200 copies? at 200 each? With no mention that you can just ring up S@H and get it yourself? Not very community friendly. Dear LEGO, If you want us to respect the capacity constraints you placed on this set and not try to circumvent them, (...) (20 years ago, 21-May-04, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —David Gregory
|
| | | | (...) This person has either cheated the system to somehow get 200 Mearsk ships, or they do not really have that many to begin with. I also agree that asking $200 each for a set that just came out is both rude and absurd...so I'd like to do (...) (20 years ago, 22-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Jeremy Rear
|
| | | | (...) It could be very possible that this person works for Maersk in Hawaii, or knows someone who works for Maersk, or contacted Maersk directly (having an "in" with the company) to obtain the ships. Not to defend this person, but these are (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Indeed they are. Which is why I asked that LEGO look into it. (asked, mind you) And later posted that I have reason to believe they are looking into it. (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Might this seem like a form of insider trading? If LEGO has facilitated this process in defiance of its stated ordering limits, then cleary they're at fault. But what if the seller has found a non-publicly-disclosed means of acquiring numerous (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Not really, because I support insider trading. All trading is insider trading, actually. (...) Nope. Assuming there's no breach of contract. (...) Nothing. You, however, can do something about it, if you wish. (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's an interesting assertion, though I'd have to differ. On what do you base it? (...) Hadn't thought about it, honestly. What could I do, if I wished? I can head to Hawaii and give him the frowning of a lifetime. Who's with me!?! Dave! (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) On the legal definition of insider trading as it stands, today, in the US. That's the last I'll say about it in this thread, start a new thread if you want. (...) Don't buy from him, every chance you get. Haven't you read the thread? :-) (...) (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Nah, not worth it. I think I misread your initial point anyway, and my question was imprecisely worded. (...) Heck, I've already been doing that. I'm glad to support the team! Haven't you read the thread? :-) Only the parts in OT.debate. You (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
