Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:20:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1921 times
|
| |
|
|
Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Frank Filz writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > 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. :)
> >
> > fraud is just another word for thief (at least in my book, and I'm
> > guessing Larry's also).
>
> 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 then tried to walk out of the store with the item.
> (which theft with a dose of fraud thrown in for good measure) :)
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 $10 price tag with a $5 one, sure, you aren't
stealing a $10 item, but you are effectively stealing $5. I think
Larry's reasoning for calling this theft goes to his "everything's a
property right" so anything which abuses your property rights is a
theft, though there may be other names for it (such as murder for the
theft of the property right to your life).
further discussion along this path really should go to
lugnet.off-topic.debate.
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't know, I've found plenty to spend my money on, but then I don't
> > live in Canada.
>
> Things are different outside of the U.S. Not just in Canada, but in many
> other countries as well. It's not always as easy to spend money on LEGO as
> we'd like it to be.
>
> > I find much of the current product line appealing. Yea,
> > I have complaints, but I suspect I'd have many complaints about the
> > older sets also if I was seeing them as they came out. I also try to
> > understand how TLC is targeting their product. I think it is very unfair
> > to compare Jack Stone to classic Town.
>
> It's unfair in the context of LUGNET, but under the new rules for iPinions,
> such a comparison will work just fine. :)
>
> > Why? Jack Stone is aimed at a
> > very different kind of builder, one that Brad Justus mentioned (I think)
> > at Brickfest was not catered to years ago.
>
> Hey, cater to everyone, that's my philosophy. But is Jack Stone *really*
> what you want young LEGO builders to take away as their first impression of
> this impressive company?
I don't want Jack Stone to be the only LEGO product available to young
kids (and it isn't), but I'd rather see a kid playing with Jack Stone
(and then perhaps thinking it's cool and checking out a Star Wars set or
some other "better" set and getting hooked) than playing Nintendo, so if
the Jack Stone product line can extend the reach of LEGO, then I'm all
for it.
> > I also have to admit that I
> > haven't started building things where I miss basic bricks.
>
> I've already hit walls trying to build what it is that I'm imagining. My
> recent fire truck, although only 10 or 11 inches long took many of my "I
> only have one or two of these" pieces. It would be impossible for me to
> build a similar truck while that one is still together. That's the sort of
> frustration I'm talking about. I really *want* to buy more pieces from
> LEGO, I just want to do it without forgoing ever owning a house.
I can understand this feeling. I've got pieces I'm wary of using because
I've got just one or two. But this isn't really that new a problem,
though with the proliferation of new pieces and colors, it is becoming
more of a problem (I'm actually more concerned about the new colors than
the new pieces, most of the new pieces seem to have some use, and so
long as they are in a color which matches my collection, I can probably
find a use for them, what options do I have to use the handful of dark
red pieces in the Blockade Runner?).
> Imagine if aquiring, rather than sorting/storing was your biggest LEGO
> problem. Would you be as content with the company right now?
Probably not. I suggest you consider though whether it's the company or
other factors. How do your tax laws affect things? How do costs of
running a business in your locale affect things? How is the whole
economy and thus the spending power of consumers in your area? What do
kids want to buy today and what stocking decisions are the stores making
based on their _sales_ (as opposed to what the toy manager might think
is a "good" toy [not that most chain retailers are likely to have much
room for store personnel to make stocking choices based on what a "good"
toy is]).
Just food for thought. The problem isn't all TLC's doing (not even the
existence of Jack Stone).
I probably spend more time acquiring than building though. I'm trying to
cut back some (I mean today I only hit up 5 stores in search of
bargains...), but I guess it's something I enjoy.
I've also noticed lately that LEGO in Canada can be a bit cheaper than
in the US. The retail prices come out slightly lower, and I think
Zeller's may have more BOGO 50% sales than K-Mart. I've also been
noticing the UK and Australia folks posting about sales so I wonder if
sales are increasing outside the US? It will also be interesting to see
what affect the Euro has on LEGO prices in Europe. Hopefully they will
drop, and hopefully there will also be pressure to reduce the taxes (and
if you think the taxes are good, then you have no justification for
complaining that your prices are higher than those in the US).
> > Of course I'm not into sculptures and our TLC isn't
> > into GMLTC style modules so I don't need thousands of bricks for those
> > types of construction.
>
> I'm not into sculptures... out of necessity. I just don't have enough
> bricks to create anything substantial.
I'm not sure I could sufficiently visualize something to do a good job,
I'm much better at building buildings and train cars. I'd probably run
out half way through a project anyway. My point though was that while I
can understand the frustration with not having good sources of basic
bricks, it doesn't personally affect me because of my interests and
collecting habits.
> Oops, my apologies. They were just posted as general rants in other
> threads... not as something in lugnet.reviews. Still, I'm sure my comments
> got a much wider airing by being posted on LUGNET than they ever will on my
> own site. I just found it funny that you guys got so upset over this silly
> little personal website. :)
Folks got upset because they felt you were being unfair. I'm not
terribly upset, but I do think you were being a bit unfair. Some of us
also feel that complaints that are fair and carefully worded will be far
more likely to affect the decision making than a blathering rant (which
your comments certainly aren't). Ultimately I think most of the folks
involved in this discussion all care very deeply about the future of the
LEGO product line, we just each have our own way of expressing that
concern.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
