Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:14:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> > > > "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
> > >
> > > <roll eyes>
> > > How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
> > > have 30% off this week..."
> > >
> > > Seriously, vows?
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> > sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
>
> Thanks Ken,
>
> for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same
> time).
> A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no
> finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in America) are
> doing very well. Those are hard facts. And to come to a conclusion, that the TLC
> management is (was?) not doing well is the most obvious thing on earth to me....
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all
means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to
the actual situation.
> > Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> > sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on that promise for 'the
latest sale'
A better example, using Ken's faulty analogy as a basis, but correcting it--
1. "I'm broke. I cannot buy LEGO bricks."
2. "Hey broke dude! Here's a gift certificate for LEGO sets! Go knock yourself
out!"
3a "I can't buy LEGO bricks even using your gift certificate because I stated
earlier that I can't buy LEGO bricks because I'm broke."
3b "Oh thank you for giving me a wonderful opportunity to get the LEGO sets I
want--this gift certificate is totally appreciated!"
so break it down in 'the real world'--
1 is related to TLC stating the *fact* that they had a limited supply of Maersk
Blue and the *only* reason why 10152 was limited was due to the *fact* that
(reiterated for those that keep on completely missing the point) TLC had a
limited supply of Maersk Blue and, at the time, there was *no* reason to expect
more--no contract with Maeersk and no more Maersk Blue pellets.
2 is when Maersk came to TLC with a new contract *and* Maersk brought their own
colour! Let me reiterate that--Maersk came to TLC with the contract *and* the
colour--so, again, how is this TLC's fault? And why shouldn't TLC sign the
contract?
3a is, in my opinion, a very wrong and a completely invalid way of conducting
one's affairs--if you can't adapt to the situation when the facts change, you're
going to stagnate, and since there was no laws or 'one's word' being broken,
then go for it. More importantly, specifically directed at Ken and Ben, due to
your misinterpretations of what actually happened, more animosity has arisen
between the AFOL community and TLC.
3b is how I would end this sequence of events--TLC was completely forthright and
open with the AFOL community from the beginning, and if Maersk comes to them
after the fact and wants more, and brings their own colour, why would people,
especially in the AFOL community, balk? You (Ken, Ben) can keep right on
reading promises into what was actually stated, but your interpretation is
wrong, pure and simple.
TLC stated the reason why there was a limitation on 10152 was *only* due to the
limitation of Maersk Blue pellets and that there was no contract to get more.
Then Maersk came to TLC with a new contract and brought their own colour with
them. These facts are indesputable. You can wrongfully interpret them to keep
yourselves on the rant that whatever decisions TLC have made over the past years
(juniourizaiton, Jack Stone, colour changes, whatever) are 'all wrong', but
there comes a time when you have to either accept the idea that not everything
that TLC does is bad, or get out of the hobby.
I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing up 'browncoats'
is arrogant presumption once again (not you Ben, but I want one reply, so,
again, Ken)--if you do a history of mine and most other people's posts who are
against your wrongful interpretation of the 10152 issue, you will note that many
of us love debates and discussion issues and we are as far as one could possibly
get to censoring people's ideas and/or posts.
That said, if you have a legitimate grievance, by all means voice it, but also--
first--open your mind to the possibility that your grievance may not be
legitimate, and maybe you should re-evaluate what actually happened instead of
adhering to your wrongful interpretation.
secondly, and, in my opinion, infinitly more important, voice your grievance in
a polite, non-condescending way such that people who are reading or listening to
your side of hte issue are not automatically put on the defensive due to your
tone and your apparant unconsciously smug 'high horse' attitude. On the flip
side, if you're into the debate by a couple of weeks and the other side just
isn't getting it, then, by all means, release the facetiousness.
Papa used to say 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.'
Anyway, as for continuing this, debate the facts--(mostly directed at Ken now,
again) don't delete the parts that you don't like and add some "I'm still right"
posts at the end, either, for if you want to continue the conversation (and it
looks like you obviously do or you wouldn't be here--I want to as well, for,
well, I think your interpretation is flawed, and you have as yet to prove
differntly) then continue it. I, and others, have consistently pointed out what
we believe is your fallacy, but you keep deleting that part of the posts and
rebutt with "Promisses broken!"
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| Snipped most of it to focus on one point (...) Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people not repeat the same points except LOUDER is (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) I have no need to misinterpert anything. I can read what jake posted on these boards and words mean things. I read what Lego chose to publicly post. (...) They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
