 | | Re: AFOLs as cheapskates
|
| (...) Er, last week. (...) Bottom feeders? I owe Lego *nothing.* I work for a living. I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I pay my tuition out of my own pocket. Forgive me for not handing over my wallet to Billund. Free market economy. Plain and simple. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.shopping)
| | | | | Re: AFOLs as cheapskates
|
| (...) That's not really the point, I don't think. It's not that you OWE them anything-- BUT, does Lego OWE *US* anything? If we take the stance that we won't buy junky sets, that's fine. But Lego might go out of business entirely. And if we want (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.shopping)
| | | | | Re: AFOLs as cheapskates
|
| I've actually almost lost interest in _sets_ as such, since there's been so little decent mid-range Technic for a couple of years. Almost all the Lego I buy for myself (as opposed to what I buy for my children) is intended to swell the parts (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.shopping)
| | | | | Re: AFOLs as cheapskates
|
| David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) What happens next??? I think we have already seen what is happening next, and the time is soon approaching when the we will have to put up or shut up. First off, I don't begrudge TLC for creating sets such as (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.shopping)
| | | | | Re: AFOLs as cheapskates
|
| (...) We've no guarantee that the company will last forever. Our emotional investment in the product is a chance that we take in our hobby. But, it would be foolishness if I squandered my budget by making purchases, in part, to buck up the company. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.shopping)
| |
