Subject:
|
Re: Amount spent - LEGO code update (Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?_
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:56:13 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.SPAMLESScom
|
Viewed:
|
831 times
|
| |
|
|
Wayne R Hussey wrote:
>
> What do you want? My opinion wasn't "serious" when it was thought I'd only
> spent a few bucks and was a neophite to the Lego Collecting Family - Mark
> asked me "to come back when I'd spent 20 to 30 grand", been there, done that.
I think your opinion is serious and I think Mark may have come off a bit
harsh and knee jerkish.
Further, as someone who is in the top decile, if not in the top 1%, of
AFOLs, when ranked by amount spent, I think that the amount you spend is
only a moderate predictor of your passion.
Consider what we would all think if we learned that Bill Gates spent 10
million on Lego? Most of us would not take that particularly seriously,
right? No, the amount spent is more of a proportional predictor, if
that. And who would say that Robert Carrey isn't passionate about his
work, even though I bet I have more gray than he does.
>
> And now the interpretation of what I say in response is taken as a way to
> validate my opinion? Why is this a contest?
I don't think it is, I think Nephilim was having a little fun, that's
all. I'm sorry if you think you're under attack because of a misguided
remark Mark made. You're not. At least not by me.
> I stated my opinion (however poorly), and I'll have no problem if you choose
> to disagree with that opinion - as many others have. But why should the
> disagreement take the form of whether I'm qualified (or you're qualified) to
> state an opinion to begin with? No one asked for your qualifications in order
> to state your opinion - as I was.
>
> I am still interested in what you have to say about my point of argument. So
> far, this series of responses has not been to my argument - only to me.
Fair enough. My opinion is that there is validity to your argument but
you may have overstated it. The truth is out there, but it's in the
middle. No one is entitled to anything in particular, but TLG would be
wise to figure out how to make use of our ability to generate free PR
for their product.
> The statement I began with is: We have no rights to use intellectual material
> generated by The Lego Group - and that if we want to behave as adults we need
> to treat their wishes with respect and responsible action. And that
> responsible action includes not complaining about their expressed wishes.
I agree with the first part, but not 100% with the second, "complain" is
so pejorative. Better to clarify that I feel it's appropriate to give
feedback where we think it might do some good. Some of the sentiments
expressed here were rather strident and that's not so good.
> Disagree if you do. But disagree with the message, don't aim at the messenger.
Precisely.
> > [1] Larry might argue that there is no equivalent.
We're all unique in our own special way and all that... :-)
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
