 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > Personally, I would consider any clone info in my LEGO fan magazine noisey
> > > and annoying. I couldn't care less about clones and wouldn't want them
> > > cluttering up the mag-- it would be reason enough for me to unsubscribe--
> > > once I've already subscribed, that is:-)
> As I've already stated, don't count clones out. We are independent of the
> LEGO Company for a reason.
>
> However, this magazine caters to the LEGO fan...as we know, clones and
> competitors are living off of the brilliant design concepts (and in some
> cases, making molds directly from) of existing LEGO product, and as is
> proven right here at LUGNET, clones are a very small sub-set of the fan
> experience. MacAddict doesn't feature Windows machines...Bricks doesn't
> necessarily need to mention clones.
As one of the leading pro-clone loudmouths around here, I feel smugly
qualified to comment directly on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, I
absolutely don't think there's any reason to include clone brand info in an
"official" (which is not to say "licensed" or "endorsed" fan magazine), just
as I maintain that there's no reason to include clone.dats in official LDraw
libraries. Other clone-fans may disagree, but I am content with the
off-topic.clone-brands forum we already enjoy by the good graces of Todd and
Suz; it would simply be presumptuous to demand that another LEGO forum
accommodate us as well.
> Also keep in mind that we are striving for an all ages access publication.
> Some of our issues regarding clones won't or don't matter to many kids.
Well, if they do, let them pester us clone-fans for a magazine. Until
then, a LEGO-only fanmag is fine with me.
> Anyway, I certainly hope that we wouldn't loose subscribers based on the
> occasional reference to something someone doesn't like personally, or
> vice-versa. Does every publication you read cater 100% to just you? Of
> course not.
True. But if I'm reading, say, The Wall Street journal and it becomes
hopelessly cluttered with recipes for apple fritters, then I'll likely
reconsider my subscription the next time it comes due.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> As one of the leading pro-clone loudmouths around here, I feel smugly
> qualified to comment directly on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, I
> absolutely don't think there's any reason to include clone brand info in an
> "official" (which is not to say "licensed" or "endorsed" fan magazine), just
> as I maintain that there's no reason to include clone.dats in official LDraw
> libraries. Other clone-fans may disagree, but I am content with the
> off-topic.clone-brands forum we already enjoy by the good graces of Todd and
> Suz; it would simply be presumptuous to demand that another LEGO forum
> accommodate us as well.
But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
it were? That was my point...
> True. But if I'm reading, say, The Wall Street journal and it becomes
> hopelessly cluttered with recipes for apple fritters, then I'll likely
> reconsider my subscription the next time it comes due.
Hmmm, there's an idea...Alan Greenspan's Old-Fashioned, Down-Home, Apple
Fritters...one of those would hit the spot right about now.
8?D
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> it were? That was my point...
Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside, of
course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I wouldn't
want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd be
playing with any of the clone brands out there. Being an AFOL is being in a
state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't. Why? What if they
were even on par with LEGO? I would still hesitate. Maybe some of this
branding TLC is so concerned about is rubbing off on me! Perhaps I can consult
Dave! for a little deprogramming session, since it appears that he is
impervious to the marketing effects of TLC:-)
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
>
> > But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> > to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> > it were? That was my point...
>
> Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside, of
> course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I wouldn't
> want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
And that's definitely NOT in the concept.
> Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd be
> playing with any of the clone brands out there.
That's what I was saying.
> Being an AFOL is being in a state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
OUCH...doesn't that hurt?
> Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't. Why? What if they
> were even on par with LEGO? I would still hesitate. Maybe some of this
> branding TLC is so concerned about is rubbing off on me! Perhaps I can consult
> Dave! for a little deprogramming session, since it appears that he is
> impervious to the marketing effects of TLC:-)
Would you play with Mega Bloks for a flying bicycle?
8?D
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> >
> > > But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> > > to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> > > it were? That was my point...
> > Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside,
> > of course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I
> > wouldn't want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
> And that's definitely NOT in the concept.
Good:-)
> > Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd
> > be playing with any of the clone brands out there.
> That's what I was saying.
Good.
> > Being an AFOL is being in a state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
> OUCH...doesn't that hurt?
Hurts so good;-)
> > Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't.
<snip>
> Would you play with Mega Bloks for a flying bicycle?
Maybe for a Segway...
JOHN
| | | | | | |
