Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:21:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8164 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all
> means.
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.
> 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?
They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to
the consumer at the same time. It would not have been a dificult thing to do.
> your misinterpretations of what actually happened, more animosity has arisen
> between the AFOL community and TLC.
Lego has stated many times that AFOL's are not a priority. I'm pretty sure
there's nothing I can say that would make that worse.
> 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.
No words mean things....
> 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.
What is disputable is the fact that you can tell your consumers anything you
want and the next week change your mind without consiquenses.
> I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing
> up 'browncoats' is arrogant presumption once again 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.
Glad to hear that however even though there are many who agree with me and even
though I have been personally called a liar in this thread, my asking of a moral
question has been determined to be "impuging" people and I am being threatened
through private e-mail that my posting rights are going to be revoked.
> 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.
Or perhaps you should take a look at what actually happened and stop trying to
justify TLC actions no matter what.
> don't delete the parts that you don't like
It has nothing to do with what I like. Lugnet TOS demand that excess be trimed.
> you keep deleting that part of the posts and rebutt with "Promisses broken!"
>
> Take care,
>
> Dave K
Exactly! Lego said we are choosing to market a limited edition set and then
changed their minds. You can twist it anyway you want but the fact is they took
back what they said. That would indeed be wrong both on a moral plane and wrong
when it comes to keeping a loyal customer base.-Ken
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) 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. (...) LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
