| |
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
Greed?
GREED??
G R E E D?!?!?!
Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
(These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
> : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
I do believe my argument is better.
I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
astatically beautiful model.
~And I don’t think I'm alone…
I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
I really meant it when I said:
> “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
Pure fun with toys that are as adaptable and advanced as the individual
that creates with them.
Sorry, no ‘greed’ here,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
> But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
> (These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
Nah, I could easily see myself buying one for the sheer desire to
actually get my hands on something so phenominal I never had a chance to
acquire. I think desire is a better word.
> Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
> of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
I've never seen anyone who hordes yelloe castle parts, so I don't normally
associate greed to legos :)
> > : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> > (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
No, I think it is the collector's wish to get a hold of these, and a smart
company move at that. In one way, it's more of a two way deal, than a double
edged sword...
> I do believe my argument is better.
> I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
> building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
> Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
> soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
> astatically beautiful model.
And I need a 375 just for the sole purpose of getting a load
of yellow bricks! :)
>
> ~And I don’t think I'm alone…
> I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
>
> Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
> I really meant it when I said:
> > “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> > . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
> http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
Ah, I wouldn't go as far as that, but, alas, I would spend quite a lot
oftime building with it. That's for sure!
> For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
> Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
> through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
>
> I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
> Pure fun with toys that are as adaptable and advanced as the individual
> that creates with them.
>
>
If the individual possesses "I have it and you can't" attitude, than
that takes all of the fun out of Lego. I say, equal opportunity!
> Sorry, no ‘greed’ here,
>
> --==RïçhårÐ==--
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
Yes, perhaps it is. Ben is E2L(1), please keep that in mind, and sometimes
that causes misunderstanding. Reading over your words and his, I don't find
that much disagreement, believe it or not.
(I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in any shape or form,
(re)releases a good set, in any shape or form... would I rather that the set
was way different than any released before, but still good? Sure. But I'll
take it (the good set, whatever the source(2)) either way)
Hope that helps.
1 - old IBMTEXT shorthand for (E)nglish as a (2)nd (L)anguage...
2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!! And that's all I am going to say
about that.
++Lar
|
|
| |
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Yes, perhaps it is. Ben is E2L
Thanks for elaborating on that!
I too knew that English was his 2nd Language and therefore
I endeavored to point out that the discrepancy may exist in translation.
> Ben is E2L(1), (E)nglish as a (2)nd (L)anguage...
> please keep that in mind, and sometimes that causes misunderstanding.
I tried too…
I hope I didn’t come across as impolite.
I like Ben and respect what he has to say, that’s why I wanted to clarify.
> I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in
> any shape or form, (re)releases a good set,
Ah, ‘tis a fine camp to be in!
(Any good Lego is great Lego)
> 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> And that's all I am going to say about that.
WoW, Yah…
What’s up wit da?
I'd almost forgot!
Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
Are we only to expect 2 a year?
Till then,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
> But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
> (These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
>
> Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
> of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
Sorry Richard,
English is not my mother tongue. So why did I use the word greed here? As a
matter of fact I have not used that word since ever - I had to look into my
dictionary to cheack the meaning of "greed".
I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
> > : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> > (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
>
> I do believe my argument is better.
> I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
> building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
And if you want to "play" with it: what would be wrong with a modified Legend
set? that is all, what I desire. I want Lego to do modified sets - best with
evidently changed colours (like 4554 / 2150).
> Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
> soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
> astatically beautiful model.
>
> ~And I don’t think I'm alone…
> I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
>
> Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
> I really meant it when I said:
> > “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> > . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
> http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
>
> For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
> Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
> through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
>
> I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
And you think I do not share your hobby?! You tell me I am greedy... :-(
Leg Godt!
Ben
|
|
| |
Ben writes:
> I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
> used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
> arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
Actually, Ben, I think you mean me -- I used the word first.
There are two Richards underfoot at this point -- the best way to tell the
difference between us is that the other Richard is younger and better
looking than I am.
=oP
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Ben writes:
> > I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
> > used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
> > arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
>
> Actually, Ben, I think you mean me -- I used the word first.
>
> There are two Richards underfoot at this point -- the best way to tell the
> difference between us is that the other Richard is younger and better
> looking than I am.
Thanks for jumping in, HopFrog.
And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> I like Ben and respect what he has to say, that’s why I wanted to clarify.
and thanks for that. Sorry if I used your post as a periodic reminder to
folks that not everyone is E1L and to keep it in mind....
>
> > I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in
> > any shape or form, (re)releases a good set,
>
> Ah, ‘tis a fine camp to be in!
> (Any good Lego is great Lego)
Roger that! Got any marshmallows for the campfire?
> > 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
>
> WoW, Yah…
> What’s up wit da?
> I'd almost forgot!
> Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
> Are we only to expect 2 a year?
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
:-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> Sorry Richard,
> English is not my mother tongue.
Your English usage is still quite excellent nevertheless! :)
> So your arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
Different individual.
(But that’s already been clarified.)
Usually when I make a point I endeavor to debate
the issues and not the character of the individual.
> And if you want to "play" with it: what would be wrong with a modified
> Legend set? that is all, what I desire. I want Lego to do modified sets
> - best with evidently changed colours (like 4554 / 2150).
I do believe this would be an outstanding idea!
One that I've posed in the past myself.
But a Legends return is still quite nice.
I like both ideas,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> There are two Richards underfoot at this point
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
Man, do I ever feel despondent…
I've been here for over 2 years and I'm
still second-string to the ‘other’ Richard…
(no matter how much he likes me) ;)
~After all, we’ve got two totally different signatures:
Mr. Marchetti has the clever, witty, yet sarcastic -- Hop-Frog as his sign.
While I possess the characterful, dynamic, original --==RïçhårÐ==-- as mine.
*You’d think I'd be easily picked out with my use of:
#1. Lively ACII characters; ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ ~ Æ Å 2¢ ¥ £ € $ § ‹± ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
#2. The way I artfully lop-off the end of a ‘G.’
(For example:)
Havin’
Thinkin’
Tryin’
Cryin’
#3. The way I throw in archaic forms of old-speak to infer a measure
of flavor/dialect.
(For example:)
Mayhaps t’would
‘tis betwixt
Thou hast
Prithee
Durst
Wilt
And all this is seamlessly intertwined into a majikal potpourri of flowing
verse…
<Sarcasm On>
But I guess once you’ve spoken to one ‘Richard’ you’ve spoken to ‘em all,
I Have No Identity,
Product classification 7 of 12 tuchiarea adjuction of uni-matrix 01
--==RïçhårÐ==--
7 of 9: "Do not engage us in further irrelevant discourse"
__ ____ ____ ___
( ) ( __) / __)_ / \
| |__ | E__ ( (_ / _) ( O )
(_____) (____) \____/ \___/
Y’know I'm just playin’ … right?
|
|
| |
"richard noeckel" <shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
>
> WoW, Yah…
> What’s up wit da?
> I'd almost forgot!
> Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
> Are we only to expect 2 a year?
My guess is that LD was waiting to see how well the first one did
before committing to doing any more. I'm sure there is a large
lead-time for new sets like this, and since it was kept secret until
its release, we have no way of knowing how long that takes.
After the success of the Blacksmith Shop, I suspect LD contacted other
MOC-makers and as we speak are working on the new sets which will be
out when the marketing astrologers declare it to be an auspicious
time... But I predict that the "pace" of MOC sets will increase,
assuming that the program is continued.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.people, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > There are two Richards underfoot at this point
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
>
> Man, do I ever feel despondent…
> I've been here for over 2 years and I'm
> still second-string to the ‘other’ Richard…
> (no matter how much he likes me) ;)
You've been here for two years already? Good Lord am I old.
> ~After all, we’ve got two totally different signatures:
>
> Mr. Marchetti has the clever, witty, yet sarcastic -- Hop-Frog as his sign.
> While I possess the characterful, dynamic, original --==RïçhårÐ==-- as mine.
That may be why you're second-fiddle. Too many people keep
trying to pronounce that...thing.
> *You’d think I'd be easily picked out with my use of:
>
> #1. Lively ACII characters; ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ ~ Æ Å 2¢ ¥ £ € $ § ‹± ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
>
> #2. The way I artfully lop-off the end of a ‘G.’
> (For example:)
> Havin’
> Thinkin’
> Tryin’
> Cryin’
>
> #3. The way I throw in archaic forms of old-speak to infer a measure
> of flavor/dialect.
> (For example:)
> Mayhaps t’would
> ‘tis betwixt
> Thou hast
> Prithee
> Durst
> Wilt
Durst is supposedly musical, and Wilt is worth ten thousand....
nevermind.fnord
> And all this is seamlessly intertwined into a majikal potpourri of flowing
> verse…
>
> <Sarcasm On>
> But I guess once you’ve spoken to one ‘Richard’ you’ve spoken to ‘em all,
You forgot about eyeball-biting monkeys™, Stubbies™, and head-stepping.
Or is it bad form to admit that's what I identify you most closely with?
Also, your rants are markedly different from the other Richards' (yes,
there are more Richards beneath you as well). Have no fear--some kinds
of notoriety you may not, in fact, will.
best
LFB
|
|
|
