 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000 —Jeff Boen
|
| | | (...) 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 —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | 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 —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | | 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) <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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <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 —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | 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 Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Your point is? --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000 —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —David Goeb
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) [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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —David Goeb
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jeff Boen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Karl Martinson
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Richard Manzo
|
| | | | 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
