| |
? not yet
? the same
! when ?
;-) play well
Michel Roijen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
Yah, I just checked it out -- it won't work for me. Evidently, the "Low-Band
No Flash Site" still needs Javascript. :-( I haven't visited www.lego.com for
almost a year now, due to their various user-hostile publishing policies...
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
Hi folks,
Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
>
>
> Jeff
Then what is new? Not the home page, bulk pages, catalog...
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
Maybe in your corner of the universe... not in mine. :)
Looks like lego.com may be experiencing that weird slow progression again...
James
|
|
| |
> > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> Maybe in your corner of the universe... not in mine. :)
It's up for me... Maybe the people who don't see it have cached versions...
One thing I noticed is better names for the bulk parts (ex: Train window is
only in parentheses, the main name is Wall Element).
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
BXL34@po.cwru.edu
http://home.cwru.edu/~bxl34/
|
|
| |
"Bram Lambrecht" <BXL34@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHDFDCEBCEKMCCAA.BXL34@po.cwru.edu...
> > > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> > Maybe in your corner of the universe... not in mine. :)
>
> It's up for me... Maybe the people who don't see it have cached • versions...
> One thing I noticed is better names for the bulk parts (ex: Train window • is
> only in parentheses, the main name is Wall Element).
> --Bram
Are those small changes part of the new site though? It certainly looks the
same to me - maybe I haven't looked deep enough. The impression I got with
the large overhaul would be a graphical redesign as well. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but that was my expectation. Oh well, if it is, great! and if it
isn't, I can be patient and wait a little while longer. I have stuff to do
before class at 3 now...so I can't take any more time looking into it.... :\
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
>
>
> Jeff
Well, Looks like they are in the process of updating their DNS
so it will have (mostly) propogated by tomorrow.
Here's what the LEGO.COM dns servers are reporting for query lego.com:
DNS101.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
DNS102.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
CASTOR.LEGO.COM: 192.208.45.167 (probably new site but displays "under
construction)
cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
gmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
dbru.br.ns-els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net: 192.208.45.167 (new site)
So the lego.new site will probably be located here:
http://192.208.45.167
KL
|
|
| |
Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
Kevin Loch wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Well, Looks like they are in the process of updating their DNS
> so it will have (mostly) propogated by tomorrow.
>
> Here's what the LEGO.COM dns servers are reporting for query lego.com:
>
> DNS101.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> DNS102.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> CASTOR.LEGO.COM: 192.208.45.167 (probably new site but displays "under
> construction)
> cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> gmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> dbru.br.ns-els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net: 192.208.45.167 (new site)
>
> So the lego.new site will probably be located here:
>
> http://192.208.45.167
>
> KL
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
> had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
The look is new for me, too. I don't have Javascript on, and things
seemed to work fine (I didn't try any ordering).
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
http://www.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA/cg/
|
|
| |
"Chris Gray" <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA> wrote in message
news:m3zolabf70.fsf@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA...
> Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
>
> > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
> > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
>
> Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
>
> The look is new for me, too. I don't have Javascript on, and things
> seemed to work fine (I didn't try any ordering).
I now have the new look too. Great improvement!!
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Chris Gray" <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA> wrote in message
> news:m3zolabf70.fsf@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA...
> > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> >
> > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
> > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> >
> > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
> >
> > The look is new for me, too. I don't have Javascript on, and things
> > seemed to work fine (I didn't try any ordering).
>
> I now have the new look too. Great improvement!!
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114
> AIM: TimCourtne
Does it mean I do not have it if I don't see any changes? i.e. is it that
different from last week?
Jude
I deleted all temporary files with IE 5 and still I cannot see any changes.
|
|
| |
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
news:G0wqw7.LEM@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> Does it mean I do not have it if I don't see any changes? i.e. is it that
> different from last week?
>
> Jude
>
> I deleted all temporary files with IE 5 and still I cannot see any
changes.
An hour ago I couldn't see the new siite but now I can.
I like it a lot better, and the ability to buy on-line is obviously in the
works. Poking around I noticed that the items all indicate where they are
available. For example -
http://shop.lego.com/ProductInfo.asp?product_number=4560 - indicates that it
is available in North America which would be new AFAIK. Note the top level
URL - http://shop.lego.com - going directly to http://shop.lego.com results
"Directoy Listing Denied" error message.
Mike - mike_walsh@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
news:G0wqw7.LEM@lugnet.com...
> Does it mean I do not have it if I don't see any changes? i.e. is it that
> different from last week?
Do not have what? I see the site has been updated, I find it funny that you
can't see it....esp. after you deleted all your temp files. Don't know what
to tell ya...
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Well, Looks like they are in the process of updating their DNS
> so it will have (mostly) propogated by tomorrow.
>
> Here's what the LEGO.COM dns servers are reporting for query lego.com:
>
> DNS101.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> DNS102.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> CASTOR.LEGO.COM: 192.208.45.167 (probably new site but displays "under
> construction)
> cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> gmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> dbru.br.ns-els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net: 192.208.45.167 (new site)
>
> So the lego.new site will probably be located here:
>
> http://192.208.45.167
>
> KL
Well, it looks like all the nameservers are returning 192.208.45.167 now,
even the telia.com ones.
I'm getting the new site (now that the dns has propogated) and this is the
home page:
http://www.lego.com/home.asp
Interestingly:
http://192.208.45.167/home.asp returns the under construction page.
That should probably be fixed since some older web caches retrieve
by ip instead of named url's.
KL
|
|
| |
I've deleted the cache, temp files, etc. The site still looks the same to
me. Is there something I should be looking for that is different from the
old site.
http://www.lego.com/powerpuller still has a splash screen that says "The
race begins September 2000" I figured the links to the new technic sets
would work when the updated their site.
Ryan
--
reply to: rjschave at home dot com
http://members.home.net/rjschave
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:G0wrq1.2x3@lugnet.com...
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
> news:G0wqw7.LEM@lugnet.com...
>
> > Does it mean I do not have it if I don't see any changes? i.e. is it • that
> > different from last week?
>
> Do not have what? I see the site has been updated, I find it funny that • you
> can't see it....esp. after you deleted all your temp files. Don't know • what
> to tell ya...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114
> AIM: TimCourtne
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> I'm getting the new site (now that the dns has propogated) and this is the
> home page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/home.asp
Fascinating. I get the lego.com "page no longer exists" on this one.
> Interestingly:
>
> http://192.208.45.167/home.asp returns the under construction page.
> That should probably be fixed since some older web caches retrieve
> by ip instead of named url's.
And I get the IE5 default 404 "page not found" with this one.
Steve
|
|
| |
If you want inconsistencies, with a site this big there will inevitably be a
lot of them if you look hard enough. You can't expect perfection in something
this big. Fortunately, most of the problems won't be very significant. For
instance, here is one that is basically benign, but shows the difficulty in
keeping things consistent over a number of years, or when more than one person
works on it: start at http://www.lego.com/info/history/
"History, Facts and Figures"
There's a list of decades (except the first link which goes from 1932-1959).
Check out the last one, though.
- The link (bitmap) says "1990-1999"
- The url is http://www.lego.com/info/history/hist9098.asp which is
inconsistent with the other years which are all of the form histXXYY where XX
is the start year, and YY the end year. For example, hist8089.asp - the LEGO
history of the 1980s.
- Now go to that page. It has a title of "About us - History 1990 to 1997".
Hmm. That should probably be fixed.
- And finally, the page contents go up to the year 2000. I guess creating a
new decade 2000-2009 would cause just as many eyes to turn, as people wondered
how they already know what they're achievements will be in the next 9 years.
But at least that way you wouldn't have to remember to rename the file every
year!
By the way, something that really intrigued me was the following comment under
the year 2000: "A nine-act opera is produced in Italy on the LEGO Company's
history from 1932 to the present day." The LEGO site had nothing else to say
about it. But a search on LUGNET turned up the following informative posts by
Mario Ferrari: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=18180 and
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=18203. Cool! I wonder if it will ever be
played elsewhere?
--
David Schilling
|
|
| |
I don't realy like this site ... they require cookies ... they require
macromedia flashplayer 3 - I have 5 installed - but it doesn't recognice it
... properly because of NT :-(.
I believe in this times a web-site should also work wihtout cookies - since
this is a security thing !!!!
Michael
Kevin Loch <kloch@opnsys.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
G0w4EG.Hy5@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Well, Looks like they are in the process of updating their DNS
> so it will have (mostly) propogated by tomorrow.
>
> Here's what the LEGO.COM dns servers are reporting for query lego.com:
>
> DNS101.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> DNS102.TELIA.COM: No response (Doh!)
> CASTOR.LEGO.COM: 192.208.45.167 (probably new site but displays "under
> construction)
> cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> gmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> dbru.br.ns-els-gms.att.net: 171.20.249.10 (old site)
> cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net: 192.208.45.167 (new site)
>
> So the lego.new site will probably be located here:
>
> http://192.208.45.167
>
> KL
|
|
| |
Chris Gray wrote:
> Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
>
> > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
> > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
>
> Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, far
right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
on bulkpage1.asp ?? I don't see any mentionof 2x6's. I see
C. 2 x 8 BRICK 25 piece bag $8.99
with a picture of a green 2x8 brick.
Ryan
--
reply to: rjschave at home dot com
http://members.home.net/rjschave
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
news:39C1B716.2B4D17C3@vfaq.com...
>
>
> Chris Gray wrote:
>
> > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> >
> > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? • They
> > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> >
> > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
>
> Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, • far
> right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
>
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Michael Lachmann writes:
> I don't realy like this site ... they require cookies ... they require
> macromedia flashplayer 3 - I have 5 installed - but it doesn't recognice it
> ... properly because of NT :-(.
> I believe in this times a web-site should also work wihtout cookies - since
> this is a security thing !!!!
I can see the new & improved LEGO site fine with Netscape 4.7x under Linux --
but I thought I'd give it whirl with Lynx because I could always find the
press releases easier that way. Problem is, when I try acessing it with
Lynx (2.8.x), I get a "Location URL is not absolute" error as it tries to
bounce over to <http://www.lego.com/?wfx2=lh2hj34l8s> (but it gave out only
the server-relative portion of that, which I guess is wrong for the
'Location:' header). Anyone else seeing errors like this?
Recent Mozilla builds seem to handle it quite well.
--Todd
[followups to .off-topic.geek]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ryan J. Schave writes:
> I've deleted the cache, temp files, etc. The site still looks the same to
> me. Is there something I should be looking for that is different from the
> old site.
>
> http://www.lego.com/powerpuller still has a splash screen that says "The
> race begins September 2000" I figured the links to the new technic sets
> would work when the updated their site.
>
> Ryan
Could it be that Ryan and I are on the @home network or something? Perhaps the
servers are pointing to the old website. (I am guessing now, I am not sure how
this type of thing even works)
My question is is the home page the same as last week? (This will help me know
if I have the new website or the old)
Jude
|
|
| |
Hey Tim,
that's not funny at all! I can't see the new site on my PC either. However, I
have a second PC here as well which runs excactly with the same Software. WIN
NT and MIE 5.0. The two PCs are basically the same, but one of them shows me
the new site, while the other one simply doesn't! I really tried very hard,
but my own PC really won't show me the new site. That's fairly dissapointing,
since I can see the site using the SAME URL (www.lego.com) but a different PC.
And no - this is no Caching-error or anything, it's pure madness (and it makes
me mad as well).
Bye, Christian --- xTI@N (who is more than confused now)
LUGNet Member #479
--------------------------------------------------------
The world is full of AFOLs --- gech1@t-online.de
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> Do not have what? I see the site has been updated, I find it funny that you
> can't see it....esp. after you deleted all your temp files. Don't know what
> to tell ya...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114
> AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Christian Gemuenden writes:
> Hey Tim,
>
> that's not funny at all! I can't see the new site on my PC either. However, I
> have a second PC here as well which runs excactly with the same Software. WIN
> NT and MIE 5.0. The two PCs are basically the same, but one of them shows me
> the new site, while the other one simply doesn't! I really tried very hard,
> but my own PC really won't show me the new site. That's fairly dissapointing,
> since I can see the site using the SAME URL (www.lego.com) but a different PC.
> And no - this is no Caching-error or anything, it's pure madness (and it makes
> me mad as well).
>
> Bye, Christian --- xTI@N (who is more than confused now)
> LUGNet Member #479
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The world is full of AFOLs --- gech1@t-online.de
Are you using the same internet provider for both? Is it the same account you
are using?
I just got into work, cleared the cache on my Win 95 with Netscape 4.7 and low
and behold... the old site.
<stamping feet> I WANNA SEE THE SITE NOW!!!!!!!!! </stamping feet>
Jude
Don't even get me started about the fact that I got my S@H order from last week
*without* a S@H catalog after I asked for it!?!
I think Scott may be right about more than marmite.
|
|
| |
I just fired up my laptop and connected to the net via my old and slow dial
up account (Netcom, er I mean Mindspring, er I mean Earthlink). The site
looks the same as when I access it via my @home account which is to say that
nothing looks new.
Ryan
--
reply to: rjschave at home dot com
http://members.home.net/rjschave
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
news:G0xAwq.AIL@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ryan J. Schave writes:
> > I've deleted the cache, temp files, etc. The site still looks the same • to
> > me. Is there something I should be looking for that is different from • the
> > old site.
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/powerpuller still has a splash screen that says "The
> > race begins September 2000" I figured the links to the new technic sets
> > would work when the updated their site.
> >
> > Ryan
>
> Could it be that Ryan and I are on the @home network or something? Perhaps • the
> servers are pointing to the old website. (I am guessing now, I am not sure • how
> this type of thing even works)
>
> My question is is the home page the same as last week? (This will help me • know
> if I have the new website or the old)
>
> Jude
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> press releases easier that way. Problem is, when I try acessing it with
> Lynx (2.8.x), I get a "Location URL is not absolute" error as it tries to
> bounce over to <http://www.lego.com/?wfx2=lh2hj34l8s> (but it gave out only
> the server-relative portion of that, which I guess is wrong for the
> 'Location:' header). Anyone else seeing errors like this?
I get that error all the time with lynx -- it's usually just a warning and
Lynx copes with it. However, this ends up doing something else weird: it
eventually dumps me at:
[ERROR.GIF] No cookie.
To access this site your browser must be accepting cookies.
even though I've got lynx configured to accept cookies.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
| |
Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote:
> Yah, I just checked it out -- it won't work for me. Evidently, the "Low-Band
> No Flash Site" still needs Javascript. :-( I haven't visited www.lego.com for
> almost a year now, due to their various user-hostile publishing policies...
It also doesn't work with Lynx. It gives an error about cookies -- even
though Lynx accepts cookies and works with every other site that requires
them.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
>
>
Now I am dissapointed. S@H UK, is headed "England":
http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
Prices are full RRP, shipping is extra.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thought I'd point out the the new Lego site is up.
> >
> >
>
> Now I am dissapointed.
Tell us something we don't know :-)
> S@H UK, is headed "England":
> http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
>
> Prices are full RRP, shipping is extra.
>
> Scott A
At least you can see the site :-( What does the home page look like?
(I feel like I am asking someone to read me a comic over the phone)
Jude
|
|
| |
There's your problem - you still see the old site. The NEW site has:
2x6 Brick
Black Item #3463
Light Grey Item #3464
White Item #3465
Dark Green Item #3466
Red Item #3467
Pictured above them is a 2xEIGHT brick. No prices listed on the new site yet.
Ryan J Schave wrote:
> on bulkpage1.asp ?? I don't see any mentionof 2x6's. I see
>
> C. 2 x 8 BRICK 25 piece bag $8.99
>
> with a picture of a green 2x8 brick.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
>
> reply to: rjschave at home dot com
> http://members.home.net/rjschave
>
> "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:39C1B716.2B4D17C3@vfaq.com...
> >
> >
> > Chris Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? • They
> > > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> > >
> > > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
> >
> > Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, • far
> > right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> > left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Stangl
> > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
> >
> >
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
The prices are there, but it's just a kinda round about way of getting to them.
You need to click check availability, then you get to choose where you are
located, then you get a price list.
I think instead of "check availability" they should have "click for prices".
Julie
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> There's your problem - you still see the old site. The NEW site has:
>
> 2x6 Brick
> Black Item #3463
> Light Grey Item #3464
> White Item #3465
> Dark Green Item #3466
> Red Item #3467
>
> Pictured above them is a 2xEIGHT brick. No prices listed on the new site yet.
>
>
>
> Ryan J Schave wrote:
>
> > on bulkpage1.asp ?? I don't see any mentionof 2x6's. I see
> >
> > C. 2 x 8 BRICK 25 piece bag $8.99
> >
> > with a picture of a green 2x8 brick.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > --
> >
> > reply to: rjschave at home dot com
> > http://members.home.net/rjschave
> >
> > "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
> > news:39C1B716.2B4D17C3@vfaq.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Gray wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? • They
> > > > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> > > >
> > > > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > > > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > > > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
> > >
> > > Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, • far
> > > right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> > > left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Stangl
> > > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
> that's not funny at all! I can't see the new site on my PC either. • However, I
> have a second PC here as well which runs excactly with the same Software. • WIN
> NT and MIE 5.0. The two PCs are basically the same, but one of them shows • me
> the new site, while the other one simply doesn't! I really tried very • hard,
> but my own PC really won't show me the new site. That's fairly • dissapointing,
> since I can see the site using the SAME URL (www.lego.com) but a different • PC.
> And no - this is no Caching-error or anything, it's pure madness (and it • makes
> me mad as well).
>
> Bye, Christian --- xTI@N (who is more than confused now)
> LUGNet Member #479
I'm even more confused... yesterday evening I saw the new site; now I only
get errors when I try to go to the new site.
What's going on?!
|
|
| |
I've already emailed them about it Scott... it got my goat as well!
Steve
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message
news:G0xK9p.Jrw@lugnet.com...
> Now I am dissapointed. S@H UK, is headed "England":
> http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
>
> Prices are full RRP, shipping is extra.
>
> Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> Now I am dissapointed. S@H UK, is headed "England":
> http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
This is the price of establishing a Scottish partliment.
Now Lego will only ship to England!
Regards
Lawrence
ps my Grandmother was Scottish - McDougal
My other Grandparents are Irish
Wilkes is Dutch
And my wife is Polish
So my kids have a difficult time with national identity! Still at least they
can play sports for almost anyone!
|
|
| |
Yes, you get a list - the FULL list - it would be more useful if you got the price
for the part you were checking on, rather than having to remember the part # then
look it up on the full list.
Julie Krenz wrote:
> The prices are there, but it's just a kinda round about way of getting to them.
> You need to click check availability, then you get to choose where you are
> located, then you get a price list.
>
> I think instead of "check availability" they should have "click for prices".
> Julie
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> > There's your problem - you still see the old site. The NEW site has:
> >
> > 2x6 Brick
> > Black Item #3463
> > Light Grey Item #3464
> > White Item #3465
> > Dark Green Item #3466
> > Red Item #3467
> >
> > Pictured above them is a 2xEIGHT brick. No prices listed on the new site yet.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan J Schave wrote:
> >
> > > on bulkpage1.asp ?? I don't see any mentionof 2x6's. I see
> > >
> > > C. 2 x 8 BRICK 25 piece bag $8.99
> > >
> > > with a picture of a green 2x8 brick.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > reply to: rjschave at home dot com
> > > http://members.home.net/rjschave
> > >
> > > "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39C1B716.2B4D17C3@vfaq.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris Gray wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > > > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? • They
> > > > > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > > > > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > > > > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
> > > >
> > > > Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, • far
> > > > right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> > > > left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Stangl
> > > > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > > > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > > > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > > > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Stangl
> > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> Yes, you get a list - the FULL list - it would be more useful if you got the
> price
> for the part you were checking on, rather than having to remember the part #
> then
> look it up on the full list.
<snip>
Do they have *new* bulk elements?
Jude
Blind to the new changes thus far...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> Prices are full RRP, shipping is extra.
Say, what does RRP stand for? Is it another name for MSRP (Manufacturer's
Suggested Retail Price) a.k.a. "suggested retail price" or "list price"?
--Todd
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:G0xx9B.54u@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Prices are full RRP, shipping is extra.
>
> Say, what does RRP stand for? Is it another name for MSRP (Manufacturer's
> Suggested Retail Price) a.k.a. "suggested retail price" or "list price"?
Recommended Retail Price
Huw
|
|
| |
Hey, I was only thinking of the English readers. Without the celtic nations
the UK would have no culture.
:-)
Scott A
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > Now I am dissapointed. S@H UK, is headed "England":
> > http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
>
> This is the price of establishing a Scottish partliment.
>
> Now Lego will only ship to England!
>
> Regards
> Lawrence
>
> ps my Grandmother was Scottish - McDougal
> My other Grandparents are Irish
> Wilkes is Dutch
> And my wife is Polish
> So my kids have a difficult time with national identity! Still at least they
> can play sports for almost anyone!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> Yes, you get a list - the FULL list - it would be more useful if
> you got the price for the part you were checking on, rather than
> having to remember the part # then look it up on the full list.
Absolutely - I suspect we would all concur. Perhaps that is going
to be "fixed" when the on-line ordering becomes available.
Julie Krenz wrote:
> > The prices are there, but it's just a kinda round about way of
> > getting to them. You need to click check availability, then you
> > get to choose where you are located, then you get a price list.
> > I think instead of "check availability" they should have
> > "click for prices".
Another good point. What really bother's me though is this:
" In placing your order, you authorize LEGO Shop at Home to appoint
a Canadian customs broker to act on your behalf to obtain customs
clearance of your merchandise and remit applicable duties AND TAXES
to Revenue Canada. Amounts received by LEGO Direct for duties AND
TAXES are accepted on your behalf, for the broker. " (Emphasis mine)
I know from my last order that they are charging GST on items. This IMO
is totally bogus! The GST applies to purchases made IN CANADA. We're
buying something from the USA, (as evidenced by the customs charge) so
the GST does not apply. We Canadians already know we're taxed more
than anywhere else, so I'll restrain myself from ranting about that. What
I want to know is why is TLC doing Ottawa's dirty work? I can understand
them collecting the duty - it's more efficient for everyone involved - but
why the GST? Ottawa wants to "have it's cake and eat it to" - No surprise
there, but why is TLC in on the scam? Oh - Don't forget the "rubbing salt
in the wound" part - It's all done in US$, so the tax is 150% as much as
it should be, and we also get charged a percentage/fee to convert our pesos.
I didn't say anything earlier because I hoped the new site would be different.
SRC
(Who also comments that the new site is just as slow as the old one.)
|
|
| |
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
>
> There's your problem - you still see the old site. The NEW site has:
>
> 2x6 Brick
> Black Item #3463
> Light Grey Item #3464
> White Item #3465
> Dark Green Item #3466
> Red Item #3467
>
> Pictured above them is a 2xEIGHT brick. No prices listed on the new site yet.
Tom,
I also see this error. Interestingly enough, though, it's not the same
error as on the original bulk page (old Lego site) -- the first time, it
said 2x8 brick, but pictured a 2x10, if I remember correctly.
Jeff
|
|
| |
Jude Beaudin wrote:
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Yes, you get a list - the FULL list - it would be more useful if you got the
> > price
> > for the part you were checking on, rather than having to remember the part #
> > then
> > look it up on the full list.
>
> <snip>
>
> Do they have *new* bulk elements?
>
> Jude
>
> Blind to the new changes thus far...
Hi Jude,
No, the set of elements is the same, allowing for the error on the 2x8
brick.
I suspect that your problem has to do with retrieving pages from a proxy
or from a local DNS which still has the old address cached. Be patient
and I'm sure you'll get to see it soon :)
It's nice and all, but it'll be a whole lot nicer once they add more
bulk elements, and Brad suggested that wouldn't be until October - my
guess would be LATE October :)
They've added the S@H pages & infrastructure, which is nice, but they
don't seem to have learned a lesson about site speed and Flash
graphics. Oh well.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Chapple writes:
> Another good point. What really bother's me though is this:
>
> " In placing your order, you authorize LEGO Shop at Home to appoint
> a Canadian customs broker to act on your behalf to obtain customs
> clearance of your merchandise and remit applicable duties AND TAXES
> to Revenue Canada. Amounts received by LEGO Direct for duties AND
> TAXES are accepted on your behalf, for the broker. " (Emphasis mine)
>
> I know from my last order that they are charging GST on items. This IMO
> is totally bogus! The GST applies to purchases made IN CANADA. We're
> buying something from the USA, (as evidenced by the customs charge) so
> the GST does not apply. We Canadians already know we're taxed more
> than anywhere else, so I'll restrain myself from ranting about that. What
> I want to know is why is TLC doing Ottawa's dirty work? I can understand
> them collecting the duty - it's more efficient for everyone involved - but
> why the GST? Ottawa wants to "have it's cake and eat it to" - No surprise
> there, but why is TLC in on the scam? Oh - Don't forget the "rubbing salt
> in the wound" part - It's all done in US$, so the tax is 150% as much as
> it should be, and we also get charged a percentage/fee to convert our pesos.
Whenever you buy something internationally, and have it shipped to you, you
pay applicable duties and taxes - which in the case of toys, is 0% duty and 7%
tax.
I'm not sure what you mean by the tax being 150% of what it should be - 7% is
7%, regardless of the currency.
When I ordered grey brick packs (5145) back in the spring, I did some math,
and figured out as best I could from the prices of the packs & the current
exchange rate, how much it cost me now that S@H moved to the US. Over 20
brick packs, the difference was pennies.
LEGO charges you X amount USD for your order, and it's your credit
card/bank/whatever that does the currency conversion. If you're getting
burned on the exchange rate, that's what's doing it.
James
|
|
| |
SRC wrote:
> I know from my last order that they are charging GST on items. This IMO
> is totally bogus! The GST applies to purchases made IN CANADA. We're
> buying something from the USA, (as evidenced by the customs charge) so
> the GST does not apply.
No, the GST applies to purchases made by Canadians. If you buy something
in the US and bring it back in and pay customs duty on it, you get to
pay GST too. If you subscribe to a US magazine, the cost includes GST.
If you mail order something from the US and the mail order co DOESN't
collect the GST, you pay GST on it when it gets here and Canada Post
collects a $5 "handling fee" as well to add insult to injur. So Lego's
$2 US fee is cheaper!
> in the wound" part - It's all done in US$, so the tax is 150% as much as
> it should be,
7% of the US price, converted into CN$, is the same as converting the
price to CN$ and then taking 7% of it. How do you come up with 150%??
> and we also get charged a percentage/fee to convert our pesos.
Hmmm? I don't see that in the catalog or on the orders I made recently.
You can actually pay by mail in CN$ with no conversion fee, and the rate
(at 1.43) is better than what you'd get at the bank and better than the
1.5.. I was charged by my CC company.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
Open Air Market: Limited edition kit
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-mrkt.htm
Craftsman Kits & Custom Lego models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Scott Arthur writes:
> Hey, I was only thinking of the English readers. Without the celtic nations
> the UK would have no culture.
>
> :-)
>
> Scott A
Hey...what about all the memorable things we English are good at;
1) Inventing things we can't make and forgetting to patent them
2) Imaginative physical 'discussions' after losing footy matches
3) Wearing socks on hot days
4) NEVER tooting one's horn unless it is absolutely necessary
Dont forget that the Scots, Welsh and Irish hate us so much that they insisted
that the Dome was built in England.
Jon
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > Now I am dissapointed. S@H UK, is headed "England":
> > > http://www.lego.com/products/ukproducts.asp
> >
> > This is the price of establishing a Scottish partliment.
> >
> > Now Lego will only ship to England!
> >
> > Regards
> > Lawrence
> >
> > ps my Grandmother was Scottish - McDougal
> > My other Grandparents are Irish
> > Wilkes is Dutch
> > And my wife is Polish
> > So my kids have a difficult time with national identity! Still at least they
> > can play sports for almost anyone!
|
|
| |
> > Blind to the new changes thus far...
I can see said the blindman!!!
Finally :-)
Jude
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> I get that error all the time with lynx -- it's usually just a warning and
> Lynx copes with it. However, this ends up doing something else weird: it
> eventually dumps me at:
>
> [ERROR.GIF] No cookie.
>
> To access this site your browser must be accepting cookies.
>
> even though I've got lynx configured to accept cookies.
I had the same problem trying to use iCab to access it - it worked fine
once I told iCab to pretend it was Netscape.
--
Kevin Reid: | Macintosh:
"I'm me." | Think different.
|
|
| |
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> writes:
> Chris Gray wrote:
>
> > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> >
> > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They
> > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> >
> > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
>
> Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, far
> right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
Sorry, no, I can't. When I access it now, it tells me that I have to
accept a cookie, which I refuse to do. I guess I won't be visiting
the Lego site anymore, until they fix this bug.
Some of the folks having trouble getting the new stuff may be hitting
problems where the pages are being cached by a caching proxie or a
caching server that is part of their ISP or some intermediate network.
Such things are supposed to work properly, but if the source site is
unreachable, I expect the caching server would deliver the old data
rather than giving a failure to the request.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
http://www.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA/cg/
|
|
| |
Chris Gray <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA> wrote:
> Sorry, no, I can't. When I access it now, it tells me that I have to
> accept a cookie, which I refuse to do. I guess I won't be visiting
> the Lego site anymore, until they fix this bug.
It's a bug that it doesn't work with some browsers even though they do
accept cookies. And it's bad design for the site to not work at all without
them. But it's not a bug. Cookies which are sent back to the original server
only are a good thing.
[-> off-topic geek ]
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
| |
mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes:
> Chris Gray <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA> wrote:
> > Sorry, no, I can't. When I access it now, it tells me that I have to
> > accept a cookie, which I refuse to do. I guess I won't be visiting
> > the Lego site anymore, until they fix this bug.
>
> It's a bug that it doesn't work with some browsers even though they do
> accept cookies. And it's bad design for the site to not work at all without
> them. But it's not a bug. Cookies which are sent back to the original server
> only are a good thing.
>
> [-> off-topic geek ]
Calling it a bug was just me being annoyed. I'm a relatively old geezer
who has been programming computers for 25+ years. I miss the days when
you could understand pretty much everything your computer was doing,
along with how and why. My reaction to the stuff today appears to be
being paranoid - I don't do anything that could even potentially get
information about me into the hands of those evil new-fangled commercial
outfits that exploit the net. Well, I occasionally post to normal-channel
newsgroups and curse at the resulting spam email. :-(
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
http://www.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA/cg/
|
|
| |
As Tom mentioned, that's the old site. However, I think I like the old site
just a bit more. Seems that if you want to sell a product, you should
provide all the info you can about the product in the most convenient manner
possible. Not listing a price and demanding a person to click on more web
pages to find out the cost does not seem well designed to me, especially if
the pages don't load quickly.
Maybe I just like to gripe. :)
Mark
Ryan J Schave wrote:
>
> on bulkpage1.asp ?? I don't see any mentionof 2x6's. I see
>
> C. 2 x 8 BRICK 25 piece bag $8.99
>
> with a picture of a green 2x8 brick.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
>
> reply to: rjschave at home dot com
> http://members.home.net/rjschave
>
> "Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:39C1B716.2B4D17C3@vfaq.com...
> >
> >
> > Chris Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a
> > > > picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? • They
> > > > had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it.
> > >
> > > Your browser cache might need flushing or something. I haven't visited
> > > www.lego.com for a while, but did so just now. I see 2 x 8's for sale
> > > with a picture of a 2 x 8, but no 2 x 6 picture or mention.
> >
> > Can you look at that again? http://www.lego.com/bulk/ - very first row, • far
> > right - green 2x8 BRICK pictured, yet the description under it (and on the
> > left frame) is 2xSIX. (Black Item #3463, etc, etc)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Stangl
> > ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> > ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> > ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> > ***SF Bay Area DSMs
> >
> >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Scott Arthur writes:
> Hey, I was only thinking of the English readers. Without the celtic nations
> the UK would have no culture.
To be perfectly correct, without the Celts the UK would have no
counterculture. As for the ascendant sort, you can thank the
Empire writ large for that. It certainly saved European cuisine! :)
best,
LFB (anyone for a curry?)
(mmmmaybe to .o-t.debate, but who knows)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.shopping, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I know from my last order that they are charging GST on items. This IMO
> > is totally bogus! The GST applies to purchases made IN CANADA. We're
> > buying something from the USA, (as evidenced by the customs charge) so
> > the GST does not apply.
>
> No, the GST applies to purchases made by Canadians. If you buy something
> in the US and bring it back in and pay customs duty on it, you get to
> pay GST too. ...Canada Post collects a $5 "handling fee" as well...
I'm not surprised at what IS, I'm saying that it SHOULD not be occuring.
It is double-dipping. The GST was to take the place of the manufaturer's
tax. Duty is to "protect" domestic companies from foreign competition.
(With NAFTA, there shouldn't really even BE duty from the USA, but anyway,)
I can (grudgingly) accept being charged duty OR GST, but BOTH should
not be charged. And yes - that $5 "processing fee" is even more bogus!
> 7% of the US price, converted into CN$, is the same as converting the
> price to CN$ and then taking 7% of it. How do you come up with 150%??
7% of US$20 is Cdn$2.10 while 7% of Cdn$20 is $1.40. Yes, if you are
using Cdn$30 the result will be the same. (I was trying to make a point.)
> > and we also get charged a percentage/fee to convert our pesos.
>
> Hmmm? I don't see that in the catalog or on the orders I made recently.
No, that's got nothing to do with TLC - Purely a bank conversion issue.
SRC
(Who's even more pissed now because he's been reminded of Cananda
Post's $5 pay-us-to-do-what-we-were-doing-anyway "processing fee".)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
>
> 2x6 Brick
> Black Item #3463
> Light Grey Item #3464
> White Item #3465
> Dark Green Item #3466
> Red Item #3467
>
> Pictured above them is a 2xEIGHT brick.
I don't know when this was corrected, but it is a two by six today, and I
don't think anyone mentioned it previously.
BEN
|
|
|
