 | | 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
|
|
(...) <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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
