 | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) It looked (to me) like it was veering off into class warfare, that is, bashing sellers for making a profit. That, in my opinion, is .debate fodder. However I was wrong about that veer and I have said so already. (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I do not see what bashing sellers for making a profit has to do with class warfare? Saying that they use economic might, or their social class to do so without good reason may well be. But that is just the way of the world. I do not rate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Was that a question? In other words, are you asking *us* if *you* see it that way? How should we know what you think, if you don't know yourself? But let's assume it's a statement, since it's more likely that you're just challenged about when (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) It was rhetorical - but I see your point. (...) Nope, it shows that you do not understand what class warfare(1) is. It implies that Lego sellers are of a different social or economic class from Lego buyers - do you really think that is that (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Can I ask what this has to do with LEGO? FUT to lugnet.off-topic.debate, something you two should know by now to have done yourselves. eric (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) Eric, I was in debate, but I moved it here as I understand that is where it belongs: (URL) If you had picked “apart the rest of the message instead of acting like some wisecrack”(1) perhaps you would have seen that. :-) Scott A (1) Using Peter (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | | | (...) general parts stay in general ;] Read what I meant and not what I didn't write... :] KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Cananda (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. It may well be a debate, but it is not "off-topic" for LUGNET. I counted the word "LEGO" six times and AFOL once in the post. However, it may well be off topic for this group - I expect it belongs in .market.theory. If anyone ever answers (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) <emphasis> (...) </emphasis> (...) You paint with too broad a brush, sir. And I resent it. I am very tired of it, in fact, in the general case. In this specific case I have repeatedly tried to move this thread to debate and others keep moving (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
