Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:02:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1562 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > >
> > > <"I don't have to use words correctly">
> >
> > Is this referring to me? If so, I'm not sure what you mean by it.
>
> OK, I shall reiterate.
>
> It refers to the new subject line.
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 snipping I do will
just be to shorten this post a bit, not to discount any of your comments.
> Seeing the previews, reading the jacket blurb, or looking in the window and
> reading the menu are not acceptable substitutes for actually partaking of
> the product.
You are 100% correct. So if I may attempt to summarize your position on all
of this:
You're most upset that I've presented personal opinions as 'reviews' because
you feel that the word 'review' defines a specific protocol for describing a
product or service. Let me know if I'm off course here.
You are probably right if this is what you're trying to say. And as such, I
will make an effort to clarify, on my site, the context of the reviews. I
don't know exactly how I'll express this yet, but I will give it serious
consideration and include it in the next update.
> > > But why dilute a powerful message by using propaganda tricks?
> >
> > Because I'm tired of the compartmentalized views found elsewhere. I'm
> > trying something new. I'm ranting outside the box.
>
> That's all fine and good and I admire you for it. But do it honestly, it's
> much more powerful.
My apologies if anyone thought I was trying to be dishonest. That was not
my intention.
> > I'm willing to look
> > like an idiot if it will make even one person pay attention.
>
> The person who pays attention to an idiot, or to a person who appears
> indistinguishable from an idiot, is not someone whose attention you want.
> Trust me.
I'm just glad no one's paying attention to any of this. ;)
> > > Your message
> > > is better than that. You don't need to lie.
> >
> > I am not sure why you'd say I lied.
>
> See above. I have rather strict definitions. I called someone who removed
> price tags in a store a thief, once.
I agree with you there. Actually, I think that's more often referred to as
fraud, but I think it's generally frowned upon none-the-less. :)
If I deceived anyone, it was not intentional. I will take steps to clarify
in the future.
> > The review is my opinion. My opinion
> > is that those columns aren't worthy of the LEGO name.
>
> So call it an opinion, not a "review". A review has very formalized meaning.
"Product Opinions" ?
I'll have to think of something catchier. I'm a big fan of the Apple
company and their products... how about:
iPinions
Any takers?
> > Please disagree with
> > me, but I find it worrisome that you'd call me a lier.
>
> "liar" rather than lier.
Sorry, typo. I've been trying to keep up with you, Richie and Jude tonight.
Along with doing laundry and making dinner. Darned web interface and its
lack of spell check. ;)
> > > Go borrow a set and give an
> > > honest review and the facts will speak for themselves.
> >
> > Borrow a set from whom? I don't know anyone who'd waste their money on it.
> > All the sets around here are still sitting on store shelves.
>
> Tell you what.... send me your snail and I'll GIVE you a copy of this
> particular set if you will promise not to, in future, call screeds that
> aren't based in a thorough review of the sets in question "reviews".
I'll pass Larry, but thanks for the kind offer. My suggestion (sincerely)
would be that if you do have a spare copy, why not donate it to an
organization that could make sure it gets to a child who might enjoy it. I
did this just last month at work. Donate toys in exchange for wearing jeans
at work for a week... good deal.
This does raise a point again that you touched upon in this thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9956
You have lots of LEGO. According to your own words,
Larry Pieniazek writes:
> it [your collection] lacks for nothing I want except
> those things not yet released by LEGO that we all dream of)
> I don't need TLC, I *have* enough
> bricks. I can get by without TLC. My grandchildren will be opening MIB sets
> 30 years from now, of that I am sure, with or without TLC.
And for this, I'm quite envious. You've been able to aquire all the LEGO
you could want or need. But collecting an adult sized collection hasn't
been that easy for me. I was doing great, with buckets, tubs and Technic
sets during 1998 and 1999, then things just seemed to dry up. LEGO Canada
closed up shop and went south. The selection at my local Zellers store
dwindled from one full shelving unit down to 3/4. And I don't yet have the
type of collection I was hoping for. The kind I was hoping to pass down to
our kids, if we're ever lucky enough to have some someday.
So for me, this 'crusade' as you've called it, is personal. I worry (quite
sincerely) that LEGO may not continue in business for as many more years as
I would like. If you think it's not possible for an industry leader and
pioneer to faulter and crumble, you need only study the history of the
Meccano company. Once they were the innovator... today, what's left of the
"brand name" is owned by the Erector company. For those wanting an analogy
of this... imagine the LEGO name being owned by Megablocks. That's what
happened. It *could* happen to LEGO, though I'm hopeful it won't.
So for some of us Larry, LEGO is a frustrating hobby right now. For even
though we have money to spend on it sometimes, we can't always even find
product to buy with that money. I envy you and your collection. I do hope
you enjoy it, realizing that some of us just want the chance to build a
collection even a fraction the same size.
> > My review is
> > nothing worse (in fact it's milder) than some things I've posted to this
> > website.
>
> It's not about how hard you are on the set, it is about HOW you arrive at
> your judgement and what you choose to call it. I'm sorry if that point is
> lost on you.
My point here wasn't my words, but where they were posted. When I post them
on LUGNET, I don't get torn to shreds like this. When I post them on my own
site, I become subjected to great scrutiny. I was just trying to figure out
why the difference.
> > If I had a shred of credibility, I'm sure it's gone. This is just
> > about making a message heard. If the messanger gets mocked doing so, then
> > I'll take that.
>
> And perhaps that is the saddest of all about this. The ends do not justify
> the means, you are better than this, are you not? BE better.
>
> > Regards,
> > Allan B.
>
> I am not sure but what this has veered to, lugnet.off-topic.debate as it
> seems to get at the nature of truth and intellectual honesty. Feel free to
> set FUT there if you think so.
I leave setting follow-ups to the experts. It has been proven that I'm not
much good at that. ;)
Warm regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
63 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
|
|
|
|
