| |
Nephilim <jthompson@esker.com> wrote:
> A clearer distinction can be drawn by saying "you are
> acting like a such and such" as opposed to saying "you
> *are* a such and such." Similar to the difference between
> "you are lying" and "you are a liar." By criticizing
> someone's action or behavior rather than their character
> or intelligence, you can often avoid riling them up while
> still getting your point across.
Yeah, but it's all the same. :) When I feel the urge to call
someone a jackass I don't normally disguise it in roundabout
phrasing designed to keep him from wanting to punch me in the face.
> If I'd been writing Rob's post (and I strongly agree with
> several of the sentiments he's expressed), I would have said
> that that Tom's post, with its shouting (caps) and use of
> almost-obscenities ("frigging") was unreasoningly belicose or
> belligerant or agitated, rather than say that the author
And you would have won vocab bonus points for the day as well. :)
> What I see as Rob's primary point was this:
>
> "The wealth of online matereial which is, in fact, copyrighted material and
> the intellectual property of LEGO is just INCREDIBLE. We have access to
> SCANS OF SETS WE DID NOT BUY. HUNDREDS OF THEM, and LEGO has not sent an
> army of lawyers to remove them." [paraphrase -- so why threaten
> that by pushing the envelope?]
>
> Your response was (in part) this:
>
> "But if TLC stomped brickshelf out of existence today it
> wouldn't really *hurt* me. Inconvenience me from time to time,
> perhaps, but not much."
>
> I would see it as a crushing blow, myself. Even though I
> almost never go look at the scans, I take great comfort in knowing
> that they are there -- that if I lose instructions, I can regenerate
> them without begging someone to make me copies. Or knowing that
> if I want to call LEGO consumer affairs from work and reference
> a particular instruction set, I can do so without actually
> fussing with transporting the instructions to work to do so.
I understand where you're coming from. And I think that many in our
community would agree with you. I just don't think that, for me,
personally, the loss of such things would cause me that much
difficulty. And the continued inaction on the part of TLC
concerning those resources doesn't really strike me as a reason to
hold a festival in their honor or name my first-born Brad, although
I'm partial to the name Brad anyway and reserve the right to choose
that name should I ever have a son.
> And I take comfort in knowing that LEGO hasn't seen fit
> to decimate it yet. It's about the most sensible, respectful
> things I've seen them *do* with regards to the net AFOL
> community (other than Brad's recent delurk)(if you consider
> inaction an action ... and in this case, I do). It would
Well, I would argue that it's not really something that they've
*done* but rather something that they haven't bothered to *do* -
yet. I think there is a difference, although maybe not a huge one.
> completely dispirit me if the brickshelf collection got
> whacked. It would stun me and dispirit me the way that the
> legal sacking of the "lego wars" websites did, *even though*
> I didn't fault LEGO for worrying about dilution of their
> trademark name. It still felt like a crushing blow, to see
> something fun and useful squelched for legal reasons.
Oh, it would make me a little mad, mainly because I don't think
anyone could argue that it hurts them or their brand. Unless of
course they decide to do something better and more official, in
which case I bet Kevin would *want* to take the instruction scans
section of his site down.
> I'd hate for LEGO to become more draconian in enforcing their
> copyright protections. I agree with the sentiment that
> we already have it good in that respect, and I've been
> biting my nails as challenges and arguments about catalog
> (and set) scans were thrown about.
>
> By the way, it's "sycophant" (without the p at the beginning)
Heh, shows me I shouldn't be writing posts while I'm doing last
minute studying for my MCSE exams (which I passed). Psychophant....
wonder what that would be? :)
> ... and I find that term (and "suck-up" about as offensive as
> you find the phrase "moron." I suggest that what you see
> as sycophancy, the people you see as sycophants would
> see as enlightened self-interest. We have a lot to gain
> if LEGO begins to treat us in a certain way. When (some)
> people feel that possibility being threatened, they may
> respond passionately. Just as when other people find
> their sensibilities being offended over this or that
> quasilegal debate, they may respond passionately.
I see where you're coming from - point taken.
<snipped a couple paragraphs I completely agree with>
> That doesn't mean I plan on giving LEGO or Todd a free ticket
> in terms of escaping constructive criticism from me. I am not
> a sycophant. But I'm not unhappy with anything right now.
> I am *quite pleased* with how things have gone in the last
> month, in terms of the big picture (someone at LEGO taking it
> as their mandate to interact with us).
Well, I'll maintain my "show me" stance till I see Lego Direct
actually become something. Years working with computers have taught
me not to get excited over press releases, and that's all we've
really heard so far. Nice sounding ones, to be sure, but I'll
believe TLC is doing something, anything, with the interests of the
AFOL community in mind when I see it. Not just choosing to not
smash something one or more of our members has created.
> I'm not unhappy with the critics, either, at this
> point (other than still being furious at the little
> **** who impersonated him on RTL). I do hope that
I never saw that, not having time to waste on RTL anymore. What a
loser.
> I hope he's not beleagured or overwhelmed or turned off by
> the flare-up of controversy that his arrival has helped
> engender. Brad, it's just the nature of the beast.
If I were him I'd be excited by it. Can anyone deny that every
single person who has spoken up in this discussion is absolutely in
love with Lego products?
> I think we're pretty much agreed that we don't want that
> to happen, and I hope that the current grace and welcome
> and respect being extended to Brad continues to be the
> norm.
Yup.
> Blathering concluded -- I'll just end the sermon by asking
> for a favor: please, folk, be excellent to Brad, to
> Todd, and to one another. Temper your anger and frustration
> with as much civility as you can humanly muster.
Whoa. :)
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) A clearer distinction can be drawn by saying "you are acting like a such and such" as opposed to saying "you *are* a such and such." Similar to the difference between "you are lying" and "you are a liar." By criticizing someone's action or (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
72 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
