 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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"?
|
| (...) 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)
| |
