 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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 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?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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==--
| | | | | | |
