 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) [confidential internal LEGO Company info snipped] (...) Huw, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your correspondent (name?) neglected their responsibility to inform you that the information passed along to you was meant (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Just a clarification here -- Suzanne was not asking me to delete Huw's post; she was asking Huw to ask me to delete his post. Since there is nothing wrong with Huw's post technically (such as a duplicate message or a binary or virus, etc.), I (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Suzanne- I acutally have to disagree with your comment here. If they wanted to keep this information confidential, then they would not have released ANY of the information given to us, by means of a thrid part correspondent, or by someone directly (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Does anyone in the UK have a contact number for Huw? I'm guessing as it's a sunday evening there is a good chance than he won't see this till monday morning. Assuming he agrees then that is a bad thing, assuming he disagrees then it doesn't matter (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I'll echo Jeremy's position. I know that TRU in Victoria has the retail catalog out on the end of the shelf. All it is is a full description of what a retail outlet can order from lego. The price sheet is -not- part of it, and that is the only (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
I have to say that I agree with Suz. If that info is intended by TLC to be for a limited audience, then perhaps spreading it over the 'net isn't the wisest thing to condone, as AFOL's. I mean, here we are desperately trying to get them onside with (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) And I with yours, at least the last part... (...) I've purchased more LEGO in the last 6 months as an AFOL, than I did in 15 years as a kiddy. AFOLS _are_ a sizable portion of the market share. Afterall, who else is going to steer the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> wrote in message news:FMADnz.9p6@lugnet.com... (...) correspondent (...) purposes. (...) for (...) these (...) It (...) could (...) the (...) Looks like I have stirred up a hornet's nest here... I'll gladly (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Jeremy, with all due repect, you're missing the point. If heads of the LEGO Company wanted their retailer catalog to be publicly available, they most certainly could publish it online all by themselves. But first, I think they would distribute (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) There are layers of confidentiality, obviously. I believe this is a breach of the layer between the retailer and the customer. BTW, I wouldn't assume that sending out retailer catalogs qualifies as "releasing" information. Retailer catalogs (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Well, then all the more reason TLC should be happy that it has people all over the world (like Todd Lehman and Huy Millington) doing for free what they should be taking responsibility for: the timely release of set information on their (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) It's not about what we might think they wouldn't mind, but what they don't want us to see? Whatever reason TLC have is fair enough. (...) I agree with the feeling, but as we haven't heard from Huw, calling it "insipid behavior" isn't really (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Huw, This does not require a vote. It calls for swift appropriate action. You know that. Else you wouldn't be keeping all names out of your discussion. And FYI, I was equally distressed about the SW leaks and every other leak I've seen or (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) IIRC, almost all of those early prototype photos came from Star Wars fansites, and none from LEGO fansites. Keep in mind that those are two totally different communities and collector/fan mindsets. Star Wars fans do that sort of thing for a (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) You're going to base your decision on what the majority thinks? Bzzt. Wrong answer. IMHO. Either you personally don't think it's wrong and you're prepared to take the responsibility for doing it (note carefully that the way LUGNET is (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Huy's scans contain the following information: i) set name ii) set number iii) picture of set This information seems to be exactly the same as what's in the consumer catalog. One notes that he did not post scans of the entire retailer catalog, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I think she was applying those words to the person who leaked the scans to Huw, not to Huw himself. Huw was only trying to be helpful. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
OK, OK, the scans are gone. Todd -- please delete the message. I cannot get Outlook to do it, as suspected. Huw (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) <CLIP> (...) I am in the computer reseller business, and we frequently get information and product specifications from manufacturers and distributors and a lot of it says that it is for in-house use only and not for distribution to the general (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I aggree with this. the hollywood news sites regularly post "insider gossip" on the latest hollywood films so why shouldn't we post pictures of this dealers catalog. If someone has scans then that is ok. -- Jonathan Wilson (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Hollywood "insider gossip" is a little different, Jonathan. Movie rumors and leaked trade secrets rarely infringe on copyrights at respectable sites. How many "Hollywood news sites" do you see with illicit movie scripts or leaked scans of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) BTW, much of the so-called "insider information" and "rumors" on popular news sites is actually presented under license, with permission of the movie company. It's spoon-fed to the consumer as if it were some secret, because that makes it seem (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I agree with you, in the general case. However, I think it's fair to state that Lego does not have a consistent policy regarding the dealer/retailer catalogue: (James Powell wrote:) (...) (Huw Millington wrote:) (...) (and) (...) (Todd Lehman (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Ok, I haven't read the whole thread yet, though I've gone to the site, looked at the pictures, read a little more... looked a little more.. tell me just how is this any different than the pictures of the catalog we've already gotten a look at? the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Maybe they shouldn't; I don't know. Suzanne's really the expert in this area, not me. But I certainly trust her opinion 100%, given what I know about what she knows. At any rate, my original point anyway was that scans of a retailer catalog (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Personally, I find this entire scene completely repulsive.. I love this site, I love this community and I enjoy and appreciate every bit of effort that is put into it by everyone (my member dues are in the mail!), I also realize that we are (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Well, I don't care how the pics from the retailer catalog were obtained. What I care about is that I missed it. I've been out doing Christmas shopping all day and now the pics are gone. I know the first thing I would have done had I seen the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Some facts. 1.Huw does not havethe catolog, he got the pictures from a source, who has not signed any aggrements tthat they would not publicise the information in the dealers catalog, there in nothing anywhere that prohibits redistribution of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Please email me the Adventurers pages if you get them. I would really appreciate it. Mark L (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message ... (...) but I (...) years. But (...) keeping (...) They (...) etc. (...) Risking retaliation of some sorts here are my thoughts. I don't know if Suzanne is a retailer , I assume she is not and I apologize if I am (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
I'm just going to pick on one thing in this long post. I don't have time to go into the deeper issues (and they are worthy of exploration, but I leave for Chicago at 4 AM tomorrow) so forgive me for jumping on this one minor point.. (...) I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) In retrospect, that probably would have been a much better approach. As a matter of habit (for better or for worse), my style is to point out things as public replies when something feels urgent, because the lack of a reply in a thread leaves (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I totally agree. If Huw doesn't want to take down the scans, he certainly doesn't have to. (I hope no one thought I was trying to bully him into doing it.) The issue, as far as LUGNET is concerned, from my point of view as a sysadmin, is that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I have a copy of what I believe to be the 1993 dealer catalog. I can't read French, but the English part does not. That's the catalog book itself, I never saw the outside packaging, if any existed. The only thing is that the back of the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Hi Suzanne (and everybody else who cares), I mostly agree with you but there are some points I do not entirely understand. First can anybody tell me why we suddenly have such a discussion but we did NOT have one in october when "the nameless beast" (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Got 'em. No need for anyone else to send them. Appreciate the effort. And let me add, after seeing these, and especially considering these things will be seen in catalogs all over the world in the next few weeks or so, I don't see this as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I can see how you could see it that way. But it shouldn't really be surprising that a couple of people who are so insanely in love with a company's product that they would start a fansite devoted entirely to it, would also be correspondingly (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
[snip] (...) I've (...) you're (...) behavior. (...) as I just mentioned in a very very long e-mail, where does the information of the Star Wars bucket 1886 come from? This information is also leaked, copied from retailers information only and so (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I agree here completely, as I'm sure most know. I've been here since almost the beginning and Lugnet is something I hope will continue to grow and fulfill even more of our AFOL needs and want. Heck, I still want a Lugnet logo baseball cap and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) This is a good argument for shutting down the Pause database here on Lugnet, Kevin's Brickshelf site, and the other similar Lego information sites out there. If TLC wanted old instruction scans or old set images, prices, etc. available on the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I would like to add a bit to this point if I may... The point of such groups as this IS to provide a means of gaining EXACTLY this kind of information. The artificial restriction of information is the force that drives Fan and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I obtained that information and the set number in a phone call to LEGO Shop-At-Home and to LEGO Consumer Affairs. IIRC, I told them that I'd heard a rumor on the Internet that there was going to Star Wars bucket and I asked them to query their (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) If you mean fan groups/lists on the Internet in general, then, yes, I agree, certainly a lot of that occurs regardless of the original motivations for setting up such groups... But if you mean that the point of such groups on LUGNET is to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) AMEN to that brother (...) what (...) all (...) censor (...) doesn't (...) Hear hear, that sums up my feelings on the whole matter. All I have to offer is that these are just legos, repeat this to yourself, over and over, until your head is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) That's what they WANT you to think! ;) Be afraid, be very afra...oh, sorry. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Yes I did not mean that this THE PLACE for such things, but that one reason people start User Groups and such is that there is a Restriction in the information flow. (...) I am not sure I was talking about "rights" TLC, us, or me. I fully (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Wait, no, that's not quite right. I stand corrected...I just checked the RTL archive on Deja.com... Looks like I heard the set number first, and -then- got more information from S@H, given the set number. I don't know if I'd've gotten the set (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Since I know a little bit about law I will give the legal prespective of what Huw did. I personally have never seen one of these retailor catalogs but as long as there was nothing on the catalogue that said "confidential" or for store managers Etc (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Except possibly for reasons of copyright infringement...? (But TLC has never really had a problem with that yet as far as we know...only trademark and trade dress infringement.) (...) Waitasecond, waitasecond! This isn't and never was about (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's easy: Because Star Wars fans online make a living of trading leaked information every single day, and they'd laugh in someone's face if it was suggested that what they were doing made them look bad as a community. They also don't (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
R2 wrote in message ... (...) The reason (which I'm sure is "ok with TLC") that Suzanne has these catalogs is probably why she stated that she would not normally advertise the fact that she had them. I assume there is some form of sensitive (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) [SNIP] (...) I hate to jump in on this one, but I think the scans were OK. As for retailer catalogs, what about set 6500???? It says in the Pause/Lugnet database, "In a 1996 UK retailers catalog, this set was announced to have been "Available (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I won't put them up for download, but I'm not opposed to considering the idea of sending them via e-mail since I now have them all zipped up in a nice little file. Note, I didn't say I would do it (nor did I say I wouldn't) - I just said I'm (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) actually i believe that you and i see this very similarly, Lar... I, too, do not believe that this needed to be voted upon, but Huw's first reaction was to do just that... so as far as i'm concerned, that's how he chose to deal with a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Whoa, time out -- hang on a min' here... What Suzanne wrote* was: "As a truly good intentioned LEGO enthusiast, I am asking you to remove these illegal scans from internet publication and also [for you to] ask Todd to delete your previous (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
You mean like the 1886 SW bucket that never showed up, that MIGHT show up now under a 71xx number? Personally, I'll have to agree with Onyx here - no matter how sugar-coated it was, Todd and Suz's posts come across to ME (as in they seemed to ME (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
You will notice that in the 2000 in set catalog, there is just a page with some info on the dinosaurs sets, no pictures. Thanks to huw we have (had) pictures of them. There is probobly a good reason why the pictures are not in the in box catalog but (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Kinda exactly like that, yeah.[1] (...) Yikes. Wow. Well, I'm going to have to tone down my opinions then, if it came across that way. More disclaimers needed, or something. Persuade through logical argument, yes. Bully, no. (I'm speaking for (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Whoops, that's not to say that her reasons weren't well-intentioned. I just meant she had other reasons (legal, etc.) beyond that due to extensive knowledge, etc. --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I don't think it calls for a vote either. I think Huw should do as Huw pleases. I like Huw, for as little as I know of him, and I like the things that Huw does. Huw's heart is in the right place, and his intentions are certainly a factor here (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) <snipped the rapidly-becoming-irrelevant catalogue stuff> (...) (No flames here, just some wandering thoughts...) I don't think that it's that simple. It's fairly obvious from the posts that there is a perception of your and Suzanne's words (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I guess it never really sunk in. I always used to talk exactly like this (strongly asserted opinions) on RTL too, so from my internalized point of view, not much has changed. But I guess some things have. Hmmmmm. (...) You're probably right. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) <shrug> Not much of an insight, mostly just a "holy! What's happening on Lugnet today??!?", then taking a step back and trying to see both sides. Plus, I've thought about this a fair bit because I'm (apparantly) an "expert" on some topics, and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) That strikes me as odd, because if it were completely private correspondence, then you wind up with something that's viewed after the fact by outsiders (given the magnitude of this) as some kind of clandestine manipulation manoeuvre, which is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Did you look at the site BEFORE or AFTER Huw pulled out the scans of sets that are NOT in the 2000 catalog scanned by Kevin Loch? Yesterday afternoon when Huw first uploaded his scans there were pictures of dozens of 2000 sets that have not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
It is certainly true that Todd and Suzanne's opinions count for an awfull lot here. That is primarily because they have EARNED our respect. Anyone could have created a central LEGO resource, and many have. Some of them are highly respected, others (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Todd, what bothers me most about this whole debate is: If you're so concerned about the legality or morality of posting the scans and list of products, why did you link to them from your spotlight page? --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I'm guessing because it *is* an important news item for fans, regardless of morality, and therefore not doing so would be a form of censorship? But yeah, it struck be as being a wee bit odd too until I hit upon that line of thinking. :) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) The function of the Spotlight pages is to highlight newsworthy or otherwise interesting tidbits as objectively -- the good, the bad, the ugly, etc. -- without filtering it through opinion if possible. Additionally, to avoid mentioning (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Todd, come on. You DO have at least some administrative authority. You do. Right here. I'm not suggesting that you would blacklist Huw over this, because I don't think you would. Heck, if anything I think you're TOO lenient about things you (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Please keep in mind that this is a family-oriented newgroup ;-) -John Van BTW, I'm with ya, Todd and Suz, at least 51%. (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Thanks for the vote of confidence. But it's not my intention to "limit how clones are discussed" here, inasmuch as no one is complaining about clones so far. Rather, sensing (from private and publics discussions over many years, plus a survey (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Well I've been sick all weekend and just read all this Monday AM. I'm not going to respond to any specific details, but I did want to say that Todd & Suzanne are correct, and in one specific area (I won't get into the legal-ese). We don't (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) My tendency to compress my discussion bites me again somewhat. What I was saying is that in my personal opinion, I think Todd's personal opionion of the effect of clones on our hobby is wrong. I even think that it would be better to have a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) This _is_ the internet, you know. FWIW, to me it sounded like walking the line. If I were in a more paranoid mood than normal, and if I hadn't had all the previous experience with you that I have, it would easily have sounded like mild (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) So how would you feel about releasing older dealer catalogues? Say, everything 1997 and older. Most of the sets contained in such catalogues would be discontinued, pricing information is, well, wildly out-of-date, etcetera. I'm talking about (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) /s/loser/luser/ But I don't really see any need to do so. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Once you start doing that, the temptation is to release newer ones.. I thought Suzannes words about fans trying to show each other the latest information to appear cool or gain popularity was a bit harsh. But her words seem to have been borne (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I (...) catalog. I (...) yes it (...) of (...) ever (...) collectors (...) If we (...) We could always put these rarities into a container and bury it, like TLG in Australia did. Shows how much respect Lego has for its copyrights and heritage. (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) How would I feel? I don't know. Disillusioned, disappointed, and disenchanted? (...) 1. What Richard said. 2. I'm going to write LEGO and ask for a clarification of their official policy and position on the issue. --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Your point is? --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Paranoia reigns king. And there's a lot to be paranoid about. Did I ever mention the $500 worth of magic cards I never received after I paid? Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) It's the reality of the internet. (...) You seem to be talking to someone else. I'm trying to discuss something here, and all I can get is another rant about how bad it is to display the new dealer catalogue. Excuse me for being intensely (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Very possibly so, but it's still a bit disappointing! (...) I try to rarely address my comments specifically to one person - if I can I try to make it impersonal. So while I was replying to your post, I wasn't talking to you in particular. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I personally couldn't give a DAMN about the # of hits to my site, as my site already occasionally hits the limit, and I can't afford more bandwidth right now. I wanted (and got) the scans for my own personal use, to peruse and plan what sets (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Quite. But you do learn to live with it. As someone once said "Instant Access, Instant Idiot". (...) I wasn't feeling very forgiving at the time I wrote that[3], so that probably led to me seeing things that weren't intended. (...) Yup. That's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Chet Corbin <citeman@aol.com> wrote in message news:FMAz0B.CnK@lugnet.com... (...) retailer (...) "In a (...) you (...) I was the source of that 'leak'. It's in my 1996 retailers catalogue, but I didn't notice it until about 1998 (when I started (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) ---- (...) ---- From what little I know: retailers (the small shop kind) order from a typed list months in advance or else they prepare by requesting "one case of each of everything new ASAP." The pretty color catalog comes later, close to (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
