Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:31:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make
a profit.
|
“privately owned”
|
Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both non
publicly owned and privately owned.)
I’m not sure why I spelled it ‘publically’, though. Must be that speech to text
software acting up again. ;-)
| |
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
|
It would seem so. But the question remains: is Lego owned by people with
decreasing wealth?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) SNIP (...) Thanks for defending the "non Public part" As for "increasingly less wealth" it was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for years and the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining the (...) (20 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
