Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:31:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8988 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
>
> I'm getting more and more convinced that Ken is not being open-minded about
> this. I'm actually rather glad that I was in error earlier in this thread and
> admitted so, because it demonstrates that I'm willing to be convinced. Ken
> doesn't seem to do the same. We've repeatedly dissected the semantics of Jake's
> phrase "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
> At Home.", and shown that it actually (as we've claimed all along) does NOT
> demonstrate a promise concerning potential future runs of the same set. Yet
> despite this continued demonstration, Ken not only ignores the error by not
> addressing it in his replies, but repeatedly uses the phrase again as though > it were further proof of his point.
Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I
don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE"
> By comparison, you'll note that each post since the admission of my error
> attempts to make careful note of the fact that Lego DID make an erroneous
> statement which could be legally interpreted as a promise ("It ... is your last
> chance to buy Maersk bricks!"). Instead, I've changed my argument such that I'm
> focusing on the meaning behind the words, suggesting that the erroneous
> statement was not intended to imply policy.
>
> I suppose it could also be because Ken isn't really reading the responses, but
Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey
did. If they didn't intend to market it as a limited set it's a shame because
they did. Since they did they would in most people's minds have an obligation to
live up to their marketing.
> rather wantonly replying to everything "pro-Lego" that is posted in reply to
> him. I dunno. I mentioned a couple times that I admit that Lego has been on a
> downtrend, yet he's presented that downtrend to me a few times now as though I
> were totally unaware of it, or that I thought that they've totally reversed
> direction. Hence, either he's unaware of the continuity of the sub-threads and
> doesn't know who I am and what I've already said, or he's not reading what I've
> written. Or he's just so eager to keep referring to the downtrend that he'll
> ignore the debate at hand and revert right back to what he really WANTS to be
> discussing, and expound on the horrors of the company.
Good to know you know what I know and want but as I see it you can't seperatet a
decision this poor, that has angered so many from the fact that they are
failing.
SNIP
Ken
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision making?' Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer quality product and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone (excluding (...) (19 years ago, 29-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
