 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
