 | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | (...) (Misc snipped comments on the value of the Jack Stone columns) Which is well and good, but doesn't get away from the fact that they are simply unLEGOlike pieces. The review is based entirely on opinion. The Expert Builder site is meant to (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) [snip] (...) UnLEGOlike pieces? They connect to standard studs in two directions, they connect to standard tubes in one, they connect to the standard slot system, they connect to technic axles (I think), and they connect to standard clips. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | (...) I really have no interest in them. I'm a traditional brick snob, I don't hide that. They are a specialty piece intended to hide poor design. I'm disappointed by the LEGO company's approach to their own product and a review like that is my way (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | Allan Bedford wrote in message ... (...) were (...) Nobody minds a provocative and not necessarily kind review. There are enough of them posted on lugnet.reviews to make that obvious. Nobody minds you objecting to Jack Stone - many of us agree with (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed. I don't have any particular desire for Jack Stone sets (though I do own two of them) but I do think they are great fun for 3-4 year olds. They are also apalling value in terms of price per piece. (...) Cheers Richie Dulin (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | | All this brouhaha has made me buy me first Jack Stone set. Thanks a lot. (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I would have to agree. You can certainly editorialise or write for entertainment value if you choose, but I think when you start using the word "review", you have undertaken an obligation to structure your article in a certain way. Honest (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I see your point Larry. But the Expert Builder site isn't journalism... it's a guerilla marketing campaign. :) (...) I tried to set low expectations. I am not out to deceive anyone, just give a chance for other voices to be heard. It's really (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) I see your point. And I'll give it consideration. But as mentioned, it's a different site, with different rules than LUGNET. I do appreciate your comments though. If you take a look at some of the other products I've reviewed so far, you can (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes: [snip] (...) The problem I had with your "review" was not that it was bad, but that you'd included an untrue statement, and that inclusion indicated that it was extremely unlikely you'd built the set. And I'm (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) My mistake. Inferred, not back up by fact. My apology to you. (...) They are reviews. They are my own lame opinions. They are not fact. No where do I claim that I am the LEGO authority to be believed above all others. The site uses lots of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) But you do have an interest in them, because you're making a judgement on them. (...) They are a specialty piece with multiple uses. They may hide poor *set* design, but that does not mean that the pieces are bad or unLEGOlike. If you took the (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | (...) It seems the concept of fair has come up more than once in this thread. I won't spend a lot of time on this, but let me give you my stance on fair. The company themselves aren't playing fair. Why? Simple. They want us to believe that LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes: <"I don't have to use words correctly"> But why dilute a powerful message by using propaganda tricks? Your message is better than that. You don't need to lie. Go borrow a set and give an honest review and the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) Is this referring to me? If so, I'm not sure what you mean by it. (...) Because I'm tired of the compartmentalized views found elsewhere. I'm trying something new. I'm ranting outside the box. I'm willing to look like an idiot if it will make (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | (...) You said "the same effect could have been achieved with simple traditional 2x2 bricks". That is not true. (...) This is a side issue to the truth and fairness of your reviews, but I'd like to know why you think they aren't worthy of the LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I said that "the same effect could have been achieved". The effect of a white column. The effect of a building that looks like an elevator shaft. The effect of a building with no walls. What I didn't say was that you could make the "exact same (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No. The effect would be different because there would be no texture on the columns, there would be no windows, and the structure wouldn't be very stable. (...) That would be good. Maybe you could add the 'I haven't actually built this' (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And this differs from most news media how...? I think what's interesting about this discussion is the degree to which we have mythologized the idea of, and even the methods of arriving at, the "truth." -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | What is a "review"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, I shall reiterate. It refers to the new subject line. A review has a certain formalised meaning. We expect a movie reviewer to have read the movie. We expect a book reviewer to have read the book. We expect a restaurant reviewer to have (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, I didn't make the connection between the bracketed words and the new subject line. Thanks for clarifying. Larry... you've taken a lot of time and effort to make some good points below... I just want to say that right up front. Any (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) fraud is just another word for thief (at least in my book, and I'm guessing Larry's also). (...) ePinion? Nah, probably overused. How about "My Impressions of LEGO Sets" or something along those lines. (...) I don't know, I've found plenty to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I would lambaste anyone (in a gentle way, of course, I'm all sweetness and light) posting a formal review to lugnet.reviews who hadn't bought the set as well.... (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I know I'm jumping late, but this whole thing reminded me of an incident concerning an arts critic for one of the big two San Francisco papers a few years back. He wrote a review of the opening night performance of a play or ballet or (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Paul Sinasohn
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hewell Tercuit, at the S.F. Ballet. They changed the entire second half of the program due to an injury during the first half, but he left at intermission and reviewed what had been printed in the program. He was summarily fired. My wife was (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Does this mean I have to fire myself? D'oh! To speak to Maggie's original posting. I do hope no one sees this site as anything close to real journalism. I'm not working for anyone, so I am in no sense a journalist. As well, as I've mentioned, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | "Allan Bedford" <apotomeREMOVE-THIS@...vista.net> wrote in message news:GpnCJp.8zx@lugnet.com... (...) attempting (...) I (...) I'll chime in here in agreement with Allan. I don't see a reason why his website or his work had to be nitpicked apart. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't agree that it's nitpicking when he has posted announcements on LUGNET about his site and its reviews, makes the statement on his website that "...there will be honest and sometimes funny reviews " and then goes on to "review" sets he (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yay, I knew someone would come through with what happened-- and funny, I thought it might be you Paul! (...) I figured Hop Frog would be in your neighborhood long before the next time I am down there, so I assumed he would pick it up. If he (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Unless Paul's place has changed a LOT since I was there a year ago, you're more in danger of it getting lost than in the way :-) :-) :-) :-) Frank (who was glad to see someone who had a similarly piled up place as I do, and who just saw (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Okay, okay! I'll pick it up. Geez... Anyway, back to the original topic of the thread... Y'know, at the same time that it is dishonest to call these set opinions "reviews" barring actually owning, opening, building, and bitching about the sets (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) You know, I cannot find a dictionary definition that enumerates any kind of methodology for the word "review." Instead, there is a lot of sketchy wording like: To look over, study, or examine again. To consider retrospectively; look back on. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Good point, hoppy... :) there's 2 forms of the word... a denotative meaning: which in this case is to "study again" and a conotative meaning: which in Lar's and others case is to experience it before you write about....hence: their meaning of (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) But they all seem to imply some familiarity with and experience of the subject being reviewed. (...) No, it could be considered to comprise of reviews of *pictures* of the sets. (...) Cheers Richie Dulin (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Allan seems to be reasonably familiar with lego stuff. You would contest this point? (...) Can you review a sculpture without sculpting it yourself? Can you review a painting without painting it yourself? Absent the activity of sculpting and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) No, but it's not relevant. What is relevant is his familiarity with Jack Stone. (...) The answers to these are "yes". Yet... Can you review a movie without watching it yourself? Can you review a book without reading it yourself? Can you review (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Allan's familiartity with other lego sets and elements is absolutely relevant, how could it be otherwise? That fact is practically the soul of his reviews. As to his familiarity with Jack Stoned, I'll concede his methods might have been more (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) It's not relevent because he's not making the comment on other elements, he's making comment on the Jack Stone one. (...) That's right he can form and express opinions in writing. It's when he calls it a "review" that it worries me. (...) But (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) If you are saying he is be familiar with Jack Stone sets and components, then I would. He clearly is not. (...) Yes. But can you review it from a photo of only one view of the work? (and yes, there are many precedents for doing so) (...) Yes. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) This is a convenient fallacy of argument by analogy. Lego is not primarily a visual medium, it is a building toy. If you don't build it, it's not a review, it's speculation. Which is what we do while waiting for a set to arrive in stores, and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I agree. A “review” is mere opinion nothing more – nothing less. As long as there is no deliberate deception at work, there is not issue here. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | | | | Frank Filz wrote: <snip> (...) So is the garage door/JS column slot workable? This really would put these pieces in a much more favorable light to me. I'd love to see someone take some pics of this combination. -- Thomas Main thomasmain@hotmail.com (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I haven't actually tried making a garage door with them yet, but I did verify the slot matched the slot in the 1x2 brick with garage door slot so I see no reason they won't work. Frank (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Perhaps my own bad interpretation of what was meant by the anecdote. I imagined someone removing the real price tag and replacing it with a lower one(which is fraud), but maybe it was intended to imply that the person removed the price tag (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I agree, changing a price tag could be considered fraud (though probably not technically, fraud is more like making a false claim). My point is that fraud is just as much a theft as if you directly take something. In the case of replacing a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The website isn't "billed" as a silly little personal website, it's billed with a very far reaching name rather than "Allan Bedford's personal site". That sets expectations. (...) Got it in one. My entire beef is with the way the message is (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What is a "review"? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | As is my wont, I have snipped all but what I wish to discuss as I agree with the rest (or Frank dealt with it). (...) Indeed it is. I don't have a spare copy. I don't have ANY copies. I felt so strongly about this I was prepared to go buy one (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) Brutal, yes. Honest, no. (...) Then make it clear. Make a statement that you have not built the set you are claiming to review. (...) "Nicey nice" is not my issue with your "reviews". My issues are the inclusion of your erroneous assesment of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
