To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 12744
12743  |  12745
Subject: 
Re: Amount spent - LEGO code update (Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?_
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:59:52 GMT
Viewed: 
2571 times
  
Snippets:

> I am still interested in what you have to say about my point of argument.

You seem to have me confused with the person who originally challenged
you, Wayne, as I had no argument with you.

> But why should the
> disagreement take the form of whether I'm qualified (or you're qualified) to
> state an opinion to begin with?

Sorry - I guess I didn't make my point clear -  I wanted
to lampoon the idea that was used to attack you - that we
have to state our qualifications (in this case, announce how
much we've purchased) before our opinion is respected.  I
apologize for not making that clear.

--

jthompson@esker.com    "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"

--

In lugnet.general, Wayne R. Hussey writes:
> 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.
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> Or maybe you could present your own opinions about those who want to encourage
> others to act against Lego's wishes regards the posting of inappropriate
> material. Whatever. Just move on.
> 
> My (or anyone's) investment, in time or money, is not relevant to this topic
> or to the value of my (or anyone's) opinion.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Disagree if you do. But disagree with the message, don't aim at the messenger.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> In lugnet.general, Jeff Thompson writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Wayne R. Hussey writes:
> > > I believe that my 25 years of collecting and building with the Brick, and
> > > about $50,000 spending - not counting increased rents, storage materials and
> > > other expenses - during that time, qualifies me as "serious".
> > > 
> > > In lugnet.general, Mark Harrison writes:
> > > > Hey Dad!! You seem to be too old to play with Lego.
> > > > 
> > > > So your message isn't a gripe?
> > > > 
> > > > And can't be very serious if you've only spent a couple of bucks on lego, • come
> > > > back when it's more like 20 or 30 grand.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Mark H.
> > 
> > 
> > While I'm tired of commenting on the civility issues,
> > I do want to note at this point that while I am impressed with
> > the people who can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars
> > on LEGO, I'm not impressed enough to grant that their opinion
> > is more important than my own.
> > 
> > Although perhaps if other people feel otherwise, a "amount
> > spent on LEGO" code should be added to LEGO geek code.
> > (reference:  http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9639/lcodev22.txt )
> > With this simple indicator, we all will know how seriously
> > to take your opinion.
> > 
> > $-----   I can't afford to buy LEGO.  In fact, I can't afford to buy
> >         food and am starving to death.
> > 
> > $----    I have to shoplift LEGO.  I now post to LUGNET from prison.
> > 
> > $---     I have to choose between LEGO and paying my bills.
> >         Unfortunately, it's too cold in my state to live without
> >         heat.
> > 
> > $--      I have to choose between LEGO and paying my bills.  But
> >         who needs electricity?
> > 
> > $-       I buy only from garage sales - it's cheaper that way,
> >         and it's so much fun separating out the broken elements from
> >         the ritvik and erector set pieces.
> > 
> > $        I buy a set or two a month, preferably on sale.
> > 
> > $+       I buy a set or two a week.
> > 
> > $++      I buy hundreds of sets a year to auction the pieces off.
> > 
> > $+++     I am Larry (or the equivalent) [1]
> > 
> > $++++    LEGO Shop At Home calls ME every morning to see how I'm
> >         doing.  Tremble, mortals.
> > 
> > $+++++   I own the LEGO company.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > jthompson@esker.com   "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
> > 
> > [1]  Larry might argue that there is no equivalent.
> > 
> > 



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Amount spent - LEGO code update (Re: Brad Justus' Comments - Why Complain?_
 
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. And now the (...) (27 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)

21 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR