 | | 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.... (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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, (...) (22 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. (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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. (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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. (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
