| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> left...
Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> > A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> > left...
>
> Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
Gee Hop, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
They neither said it was smart or stupid, just that it was.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> > A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> > left...
>
> Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Are they sold out, or just discontinued? I bought two packs earlier this week.
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, John Herre writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> > > A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> > > left...
> >
> > Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
> >
> > -- Hop-Frog
>
> Are they sold out, or just discontinued? I bought two packs earlier this >week.
They are no longer able to manufacturer them. LEGO found some old molds and
produced all of the cypress trees that they were capable of producing (i.e.
"We used all the shots in the molds"). Molds have a finite life. There
were never any plans to build new molds.
-Rob.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Rob Doucette writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, John Herre writes:
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> > > > A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> > > > left...
> > >
> > > Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
> > >
> > > -- Hop-Frog
> >
> > Are they sold out, or just discontinued? I bought two packs earlier this >week.
>
> They are no longer able to manufacturer them. LEGO found some old molds and
> produced all of the cypress trees that they were capable of producing (i.e.
> "We used all the shots in the molds"). Molds have a finite life. There
> were never any plans to build new molds.
>
> -Rob.
just to add to the discussion,
Lego Direct's business plan is to never (unless ABSOLUTELY required) to
develop new molds. It saves on development costs, and thereby increasing
the overall bottom-line for TLC.
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, John Herre writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Jeff Stembel: Are Cypress Trees discontinued? Or is that a rumor?
> > > A: Yes, unfortunately. We used all the shots in the molds, there are none
> > > left...
> >
> > Why is it smart to discontinue an accessory pack that has sold out?
> >
> > -- Hop-Frog
>
> Are they sold out, or just discontinued? I bought two packs earlier this week.
You did? I called a week or two ago and was unable to order any.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, James Brown writes:
> They neither said it was smart or stupid, just that it was.
I didn't say they said anything of the kind. I think I am allowed to
characterize their actions in whatever manner I care to; just as you are
allowed to pose inane, well-known, trick questions.
I am going to guess that very few people imagined that this accessory pack
would be available for so short a time. If LD knew it was going to be a
short run, they might have given everyone the heads up by labelling the item
"new, limited supply!" rather than just "new!" in the spring catalogue.
Again, the usual mismanagement of available information. They want us to
"evangelize" for their product (in the grotesque manner of Guy Kawasaki's
famous Apple-Zombie marketing scheme), but we often get zero consideration
in many instances where it may matter to us and they know it. So **** them!
And I know I am not the only person that would have gotten more cypress
trees if we all had but known the supply was to be limited.
I happen to think that LD, or TLC, or whomever, should keep all kinds of
foliage available as accessory packs -- it just makes sense to have a
cross-theme item readily available to anyone that needs it. To do otherwise
seems inordinately foolish to me. Given that the trees sold out in a
relatively short time, I will assume (absent contrary evidence) that they
sold well (I know they sold briskly). And while I have heard the "molds
cost money" theory many times, I again merely assert that that is the
business TLC happens to be in: making molds to make little plastic bits --
they do it all the time.
I am none too happy about the 3033 blue tubs thing either, BTW -- again, it
just makes sense to make bulk quantities of regular bricks available all the
time. I DO NOT LIKE the trends here...basic stuff is still being denied us
builders at a good price.
Really, it's ridiculous! Only the most tenacious persons would stay with
this blasted hobby -- that's why there's so few of us AFOL, there are no
other reasons when you stop to consider the amount of money, time, and
circular effort required to put together a worthwhile collection of elements.
To cite but one example (which suggests to me that there are many more):
consider the circumstances of one Doyle Nelson. I followed his story
because I knew he would never last here -- and it wasn't even a year or so
before he gave up the hobby for the expense and tedium of trying to collect
certain kinds of light grey bricks. I cannot, and I do not, think his case
is an isolated one. Sure, I know -- it's a children's toy, if it doesn't
hit big with children it doesn't hit it big. That's too lame for words --
smart marketers create markets, not just satisfy existing ones.
Shiri asked about the manner in which TLC markets, or rather fails to
market, to female builders. She knows, as we all know, that there is a real
problem with the way TLC views its own products. Every competing clone
product (MB, Shifty, Best-Lock, etc) has "pink" products in their line.
Think about it...
How many adult or female enthusiasts does TLC turn off to the hobby every
day for the sheer stupidity of their current marketing practices?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, John Morgan writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, John Herre writes:
> > Are they sold out, or just discontinued? I bought two packs earlier this • week.
>
> You did? I called a week or two ago and was unable to order any.
They sent the cypress trees on Monday and I received them Wednesday. They
sometimes (usually?) tell me when they have a low stock of something that I
order, so I assumed that they had some more left. Did anybody else order some
last week?
I called again today, and they are sold out now.
John
|
|
| |
"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message
news:GzMozz.6vx@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Rob Doucette writes: • [snip]
> > They are no longer able to manufacturer them. LEGO found some old molds • and
> > produced all of the cypress trees that they were capable of producing • (i.e.
> > "We used all the shots in the molds"). Molds have a finite life. There
> > were never any plans to build new molds.
> >
> > -Rob.
>
> just to add to the discussion,
>
> Lego Direct's business plan is to never (unless ABSOLUTELY required) to
> develop new molds. It saves on development costs, and thereby increasing
> the overall bottom-line for TLC.
>
> Ben
Interestingly, Brad mentioned in his discussion on Saturday morning that the
original LD directive was that they could not commission new molds for new
pieces. Therefore, they were required to factor existing pieces into their
decision making process. Brad went on to state that it has become a point
of pride for LD NOT TO USE new molds. They don't want to use new molds
because they believe that they can meet their mission and goals without new
molds.
Tim
--
LUGNET Member 856
Member of RichLUG - Richmond, Virginia
|
|
| |
"Timothy D. Freshly" <timfreshly@shaheenlaw.com> writes:
> Interestingly, Brad mentioned in his discussion on Saturday morning that the
> original LD directive was that they could not commission new molds for new
> pieces. Therefore, they were required to factor existing pieces into their
> decision making process. Brad went on to state that it has become a point
> of pride for LD NOT TO USE new molds. They don't want to use new molds
> because they believe that they can meet their mission and goals without new
> molds.
However, one could reasonably interpret "no new molds" as "no newly
designed molds" rather than "no newly manufactured molds". They
already have the Cypress Tree mold designed, so it would be a matter
of manufactureing new molds rather than redesigning them. I would
imagine the biggest cost in new mold production is the R&D involved in
designing the new part, not the actual creation of the physical molds.
However, I'll certainly concede that it's more expensive than using a
mold that is already ready to go...
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Timothy D. Freshly writes:
>
> "Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:GzMozz.6vx@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Rob Doucette writes: • [snip]
> > > They are no longer able to manufacturer them. LEGO found some old molds • and
> > > produced all of the cypress trees that they were capable of producing • (i.e.
> > > "We used all the shots in the molds"). Molds have a finite life. There
> > > were never any plans to build new molds.
> > >
> > > -Rob.
> >
> > just to add to the discussion,
> >
> > Lego Direct's business plan is to never (unless ABSOLUTELY required) to
> > develop new molds. It saves on development costs, and thereby increasing
> > the overall bottom-line for TLC.
> >
> > Ben
>
> Interestingly, Brad mentioned in his discussion on Saturday morning that the
> original LD directive was that they could not commission new molds for new
> pieces. Therefore, they were required to factor existing pieces into their
> decision making process. Brad went on to state that it has become a point
> of pride for LD NOT TO USE new molds. They don't want to use new molds
> because they believe that they can meet their mission and goals without new
> molds.
>
>
Good point, I forgot about that...I was made aware of this in a follow-up
message by Jake.
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, James Brown writes:
> > They neither said it was smart or stupid, just that it was.
>
> I didn't say they said anything of the kind. I think I am allowed to
> characterize their actions in whatever manner I care to; just as you are
> allowed to pose inane, well-known, trick questions.
>
> I am going to guess that very few people imagined that this accessory pack
> would be available for so short a time. If LD knew it was going to be a
> short run, they might have given everyone the heads up by labelling the item
> "new, limited supply!" rather than just "new!" in the spring catalogue.
> Again, the usual mismanagement of available information. They want us to
> "evangelize" for their product (in the grotesque manner of Guy Kawasaki's
> famous Apple-Zombie marketing scheme), but we often get zero consideration
> in many instances where it may matter to us and they know it. So **** them!
>
> And I know I am not the only person that would have gotten more cypress
> trees if we all had but known the supply was to be limited.
I have to agree big time here. I only ever got one pack. I was planing on
ordering at least a dozen more IF TLC ever decides to offer the only bulk pack
I NEED. (everything else is just nice to have) Since I was about 8 years old
the bigest single limiting factor to everything I have tried to build, (from
castles, to office buildings, to space cruisers) has been limited by larger
plates. Why can't I buy a 6x6, 6x8, 6x10, or a new 8x8 plate pack. Since
Lego direct has offered "bulk" packs I have purchased only 3. 1 blue train
windows, 1 grey train windows, and 1 cypress tree. For me personally (and I
doubt I am alone in this) bulk packs are irrelevant when I can not fully
utilize the parts I already have. I do not even care what color they make the
larger (6x8 ideal) plates at this point.
>
> I happen to think that LD, or TLC, or whomever, should keep all kinds of
> foliage available as accessory packs -- it just makes sense to have a
> cross-theme item readily available to anyone that needs it. To do otherwise
> seems inordinately foolish to me. Given that the trees sold out in a
> relatively short time, I will assume (absent contrary evidence) that they
> sold well (I know they sold briskly). And while I have heard the "molds
> cost money" theory many times, I again merely assert that that is the
> business TLC happens to be in: making molds to make little plastic bits --
> they do it all the time.
>
> I am none too happy about the 3033 blue tubs thing either, BTW -- again, it
> just makes sense to make bulk quantities of regular bricks available all the
> time. I DO NOT LIKE the trends here...basic stuff is still being denied us
> builders at a good price.
Like 6x8 plates. :-)
>
> Really, it's ridiculous! Only the most tenacious persons would stay with
> this blasted hobby -- that's why there's so few of us AFOL, there are no
> other reasons when you stop to consider the amount of money, time, and
> circular effort required to put together a worthwhile collection of elements.
You got that right.
>
> To cite but one example (which suggests to me that there are many more):
> consider the circumstances of one Doyle Nelson. I followed his story
> because I knew he would never last here -- and it wasn't even a year or so
> before he gave up the hobby for the expense and tedium of trying to collect
> certain kinds of light grey bricks. I cannot, and I do not, think his case
> is an isolated one. Sure, I know -- it's a children's toy, if it doesn't
> hit big with children it doesn't hit it big. That's too lame for words --
> smart marketers create markets, not just satisfy existing ones.
>
> Shiri asked about the manner in which TLC markets, or rather fails to
> market, to female builders. She knows, as we all know, that there is a real
> problem with the way TLC views its own products. Every competing clone
> product (MB, Shifty, Best-Lock, etc) has "pink" products in their line.
> Think about it...
How about pink 6x8 plates. :-)
>
> How many adult or female enthusiasts does TLC turn off to the hobby every
> day for the sheer stupidity of their current marketing practices?
>
> -- Hop-Frog
6x8 plates! Hey, what the heck it worked for Hop-Frog with Cypress Trees.
Learning from that example however, I would probably order a few thousand right
off the bat before they discontinue them. :-P
-Mike Petrucelli
P.S. Really now I have been waiting for a 6x8 (or similar size) plates pack
since LD announced the "bulk" packs. Hopefully the 30 or 40 new pack in Q4,
announced here: (thanks Larry)
http://news.lugnet.com/events/brickfest/?n=977
will contain a 6x8 plate pack.
Pleeeeeeeeease!
|
|
| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> writes:
> And I know I am not the only person that would have gotten more cypress
> trees if we all had but known the supply was to be limited.
Which may be precisely the reason they chose not to say so. They knew the
item was in demand. They knew they could only make a limited number. They
wanted as many people to get in on it as possible. So, they didn't mention
the limited number, so that the big resellers didn't buy out the whole
batch. Personally, if they deliberately did that, I want to thank them
for it, since it allowed me to buy a pack.
--
Experience should guide us, not rule us.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, James Brown writes:
> > They neither said it was smart or stupid, just that it was.
>
> I didn't say they said anything of the kind. I think I am allowed to
> characterize their actions in whatever manner I care to; just as you are
> allowed to pose inane, well-known, trick questions.
His question was no more inane than your comments, and perhaps a bit less,
since it's illuminative of some doubletalk on your part.
> I am going to guess that very few people imagined that this accessory pack
> would be available for so short a time. If LD knew it was going to be a
> short run, they might have given everyone the heads up by labelling the item
> "new, limited supply!" rather than just "new!" in the spring catalogue.
> Again, the usual mismanagement of available information.
I disagree strenuously that it was mismanagement.
If they had done that, some small number of people would have bought the
entire supply up and made a small fortune marking them up on BrickLink(tm).
(and you know that there are a handful of people that between them could
have raised the money to do it!)
None for kids, and none for you because you wouldn't pay the necessary price
once they were on BL.
Is that really preferable? Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
This is exactly what Brad alluded to at a different point in his talk, that
they don't want to enable people to profiteer from scarcity. BL
No, keeping the exact number of shots available confidential was good for
the hobby, and good for all those kids that got a chance to make some neat
creations with one or two packs. Shrewd management, not mismanagement.
Do I wish that LD had the brief to make more molds? Yes. With all my heart!
Should they? Maybe. I think it would be nice indeed. I think I could make a
business case for it if I had access to the right info and people... :-)
Do they? No. Get over it.
Richard, you're a much nicer and smarter guy than I used to think you were,
but every now and then you lapse back into your old ways. Too bad, really,
because it's pretty boring hearing the same old same old from you when you
do. You're much more interesting if you don't.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Chris Gray writes:
> "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> writes:
>
> > And I know I am not the only person that would have gotten more cypress
> > trees if we all had but known the supply was to be limited.
>
> Which may be precisely the reason they chose not to say so. They knew the
> item was in demand. They knew they could only make a limited number. They
> wanted as many people to get in on it as possible. So, they didn't mention
> the limited number, so that the big resellers didn't buy out the whole
> batch. Personally, if they deliberately did that, I want to thank them
> for it, since it allowed me to buy a pack.
I guess that makes sense. Maybe I should be thinking well at least I got one
pack. Then again TLC(not just LD here) is in the buisness of making plastic
parts as Hop-Frog points out. If there is demand for a product and profit to
be made it is stupid for TLC to not produce said demanded parts. I realize LD
was resposible for the Cypress Tree pack and that they have limited means
within TLC. What I belive and I assume Hop-Frog belives is that it is stupid
for TLC to impose such restrictions on LD with regard to making product that
sells.
|
|
| |
Larry:
Nothing personal, but this is the usual TLC/LD apologist stuff, so I will
just ignore it generally.
1) Profiteering -- I don't care if they offer it as the official reason for
some actions -- it's logically specious. Profiteering is an issue that
exists with every product they rerelease -- from Guarded Inn to Metroliner.
It also exists for limited editions releases like the Super Chief -- people
collect the limited edition and sell them to buy the regular edition in
quantity (I have seen that very offer here on Lugnet, I think it was 2-3
reg. for 1 limited). Heck! They even sell just the limited number tiles! A
concern for profiteering is a ready excuse for anything they simply don't
want to produce. I don't accept that it's the real reason, but even if I
did -- they are pretty uneven in dealing with "the problem" and can even be
seen to create a profiteer's market with crap like bionuckles.
Do I have to mention that this "reason" completely falls apart if they just
keep basic and highly desirable stuff in production? If they don't, they are
creating the profiteering market.
2) Molds. That's the business. This isn't even a new mold, it's a
replacement mold. But whatever...
3) Accessory packs. I look in the catalogue and find almost nothing I want
to puchase from the accessory packs. Where are the 1x? bricks? Where are
offerings in all of the basic colors (instead of ugh -- sand red)? How
about them 1x2x2 windows in yellow? I like the trees. Where are the
flowers? And now it is set certain that 3033 tubs are no more. Pathetic.
So defend them as pleases you, the writing is still on the wall. LD is a
marketing scheme to make us think we are going to get a lot of the things we
have been wanting when in reality we are likely to get very few of those
things. They readily admit that they don't care about our segment of the
market -- that our numbers are statistically meaningless to their marketing
decisions. Fine, I'll take them at their word on that count -- they have
repeated it often enough. I know it COULD be different, but again --
whatever...
So I would get over it -- except that I find it WILDLY obnoxious that they
think we are going to "evangelize" for them in return for precious little.
I guess I might feel differently if I were into train. Perhaps you would
feel differently if two of your favorite themes were essentially replaced
with licensed product lines (HP and SW).
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
<snip!>
"There's no pleasing some people."
;)
Jeff
|
|
| |
This all comes down to "Wah, I can't have what I want".
I wonder, who are the adults and who are the children here?
In the light of "promises" from LD that didn't come to pass after several
years (massive bulk program), and evidence that LD is not blind, deaf or
deficient in reading comprehension (I am convinced they have a big file on
us), the logical conclusion is that Lego's priorities are not your
priorities. Maybe they'll get to them, but I don't think it will be soon.
Attempts to analyze the company from the outside are pretty futile,
especially futile if you're overly reliant on Internet garbage written by
amateurs.
From the lethargic pace of questions in the LD Q&A this year, I sense that a
lot more people have understood they won't get what they want. Some continue
to ask; it doesn't hurt.
Last Q4 I gave up on hoping for anything from TLC and began to liquidate all
parts that had no future. I think by now I'm prepared to be pleasantly
surprised but my expectations er ikke for godt.
Maybe one day my own kids will put things in perspective for me.
-Erik
P.S. the recipient of the Wazo Zooter I bought Sunday, just turned 2 years
old, differentiates her blocks as "Megablok" and "Better".
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Erik Olson writes:
> This all comes down to "Wah, I can't have what I want".
No, actually I got most of the trees I wanted -- I could go for more though...
...and the people that write to me privately could go for more too. I get
this funny idea that my views are very popular with a silent majority from
the private emails I get a lot of the time. I can only assume that the
others in agreement with what I have stated do not post publically because
they are not interested in the heat or the personal attacks.
I mean, you are calling me "immature" right? And for what? Pointing out
the silly practices of a company even you won't defend? What have you got
against me? So, if we ever have the chance to meet in real life you won't
mind my kicking your ass, right?! I guess it doesn't matter if I have a
reason...
> I wonder, who are the adults and who are the children here?
Yeah, me too. Was your post supposed to be in opposition to my views? I
agreed with most of it.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> So defend them as pleases you, the writing is still on the wall. LD is a
> marketing scheme to make us think we are going to get a lot of the things we
> have been wanting when in reality we are likely to get very few of those
> things. They readily admit that they don't care about our segment of the
> market --
I think TLC does care *somewhat* about our market segment. After all, they
did send 7 people for two days.
> So I would get over it -- except that I find it WILDLY obnoxious that they
> think we are going to "evangelize" for them in return for precious little.
My sense is that most brand-loyal LEGO fans are willing and able to
evangelize LEGO whether we get anything in return or not.
--Todd
|
|
| |
It was a rhetorical question. Present audience excepted, but if the shoe
fits, wear it.
I'm sorry I got into this.
The thing that gets me angry is whingers who reason like "it's so easy, X
must be stupid for not doing it." (example: molding parts.) And insist X is
rationalizing when X gives a few details.
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > So defend them as pleases you, the writing is still on the wall. LD is a
> > marketing scheme to make us think we are going to get a lot of the things we
> > have been wanting when in reality we are likely to get very few of those
> > things. They readily admit that they don't care about our segment of the
> > market --
>
> I think TLC does care *somewhat* about our market segment. After all, they
> did send 7 people for two days.
Brad Justus referred to the book, _The Tipping Point_. What if LD's point of
view is that the AFOL market is not ready... yet? It was connected to
Time's article, and some other book I haven't read.
-Erik
|
|
| |
"Erik Olson" <erik@olson.pair.com> wrote in message
news:Gzq9tA.E90@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.events.brickfest, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > So defend them as pleases you, the writing is still on the wall. LD is • a
> > > marketing scheme to make us think we are going to get a lot of the • things we
> > > have been wanting when in reality we are likely to get very few of • those
> > > things. They readily admit that they don't care about our segment of • the
> > > market --
> >
> > I think TLC does care *somewhat* about our market segment. After all, • they
> > did send 7 people for two days.
>
> Brad Justus referred to the book, _The Tipping Point_. What if LD's point • of
> view is that the AFOL market is not ready... yet? It was connected to
> Time's article, and some other book I haven't read.
>
> -Erik
I think it was in Larry's transcription of the Q&A/Brad's talk that there
was mention of _Crossing the Chasm_. It is a good book that discusses what
it is involved in taking a high tech product to market. This book and its
successor, _Inside the Tornado_, are both widely used in the industry I work
in (Electronic Desing Automation, aka EDA - the software that semiconductor
vendors use to design their chips, boards, etc.).
Although it has been a while since I have read either book, I am stuggling
with the application of the Chasm Model (what Crossing the Chasm is based
on) to TLC and their products. I guess I'll have to go back and read them
again.
Mike
PS: If you ever have the chance to hear Geoffrey Moore (author of _Crossing
the Chasm_) speak take advantage of it, he does a good job.
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Erik Olson writes:
> It was a rhetorical question.
No, you began with a statement that I think was intended to imply quite
specifically that I am a whining child. It was also in direct reply to my
own post.
As it turns out, I don't take offense because I don't even know you nor do I
care what you think. But please admit when you are making, or attempting to
make, personal attacks. You could have stayed on point, but you chose not
to -- you chose to make it personal instead.
Larry chose to end his reply with a kind of personal attack also (this is
the guy that is allowed to moderate and curate newsgroups here and on
bricklink?).
James posed a famous trick question that cannot be answered yes or no
without admitting fault (in this case the *really sweet* assertion that I
beat women).
I might disagree with some of the views stated by Larry P., James B., or
even those of Erik O. but I don't think I go out of my way to insult them
personally. Maybe there is some confusion about the word "apologist" -- it
merely means "A person who argues in defense or justification of something,
such as a doctrine, a policy, or an institution."
Anyway, I don't see why some of you choose to attack me personally for my
views. Disagree with my opinions, mount your own arguments, etc. -- no problem.
Get in my face and we have a problem.
Frankly, I am not sure why some of you are not banned from posting for
failure to keep a civil tongue when replying to others' posts.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > It was a rhetorical question.
> No, you began with a statement that I think was intended to imply quite
> specifically that I am a whining child. It was also in direct reply to my
> own post.
Ok guys, take this to another group -- like .off-topic.debate or something.
This part of the thread isn't about BrickFest anymore...
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Richard Marchetti writes:
> James posed a famous trick question that cannot be answered yes or no
> without admitting fault (in this case the *really sweet* assertion that I
> beat women).
Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
particular type of answer.
If you found it insulting, please accept my apologies - it was not my
intent. The opposite, rather; from your fairly solid grasp of debate
techniques, I expected you to recognize my intent without spelling it out.
I'll try and remeber the kid gloves in the future.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> Hmm. I didn't intend it to be a statement of your character - I've seen
> enough of your posts to know you're intelligent enough to see it for exactly
> what it was - "a famous trick question". I was highlighting, admittedly in
> an oblique way, that your question "Why is it smart to discontinue an
> accessory pack that has sold out?" is forcing the person asked into a
> particular type of answer.
That's pretty sketchy.
My question was essentially rhetorical. I didn't expect to get any kind of
reply at all -- the fact that I got replies from some of the usual persons
makes those replying apologists (the negative connotation this word may have
is not my fault -- it quickly and easily describes the routine defense of
TLC's actions that some of you like to engage in). The form my question took
was off the top of my head -- I could just as easily have asked: "Why are
you discontinuing a brisk selling accessory item even if it means creating a
replacement mold?" or some such thing. The question rhetorically asks for
an explanation and is not a trick question that I can see. If undue emphasis
is to be given the word "smart" and that is the key word that makes the
question somehow unfair, I guess you are suggesting that TLC doesn't have
"smart" reasons for the things it does -- with which I might tend to agree.
BTW, the fact that I know it's a famous trick question doesn't mean that
everyone knows this, and this IS a public forum. That's why I called
attention to this fact immediately. Many may also not realize that I am not
married and hence have no wife -- again, something people do not necessarily
know. You claim it was used innocently, and I guess that's possible -- but
I am suspicious of this claim. I wouldn't be annoyed if you canceled that
post and replaced it with one without the offending trick question.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
|
