| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> No, but it's not relevant. What is relevant is his familiarity with Jack >Stone.
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 exhaustive -- but I remain unconvinced that his
not having built the set(s) precludes his ability to form and express
studied opinions about them in writing.
> So perhaps the question becomes is building a set more like these activities
> than the purely viewing-ish types you chose?
I am sorry, Larry -- but Jack Stoned and those tiny SW sets don't leave much
to the building imagination. I saw a Jack Stoned set broken open on the
shelf at Wal-Mart once. And you know what? The set was exactly how I
imagined it to be! I spent two minutes building it in my mind as I scanned
the elements. It's Crap -- you and I would both know this by looking at the
set! Photos would and do suffice in this instance. Check out pgs. 40-41 of
the U.S. Holiday 2001 S@H catalogue. Richie makes much of the fact that
Allan cannot understand the nature of the Jack Stoned column elements -- but
excepting the fact that the element apparently accepts an antenna element
through top and bottom, I can well surmise that it accepts a portcullis and
so forth. Look at the picture for #4611 -- it's all right there. It all
depends on the complexity of the set and your experience with other lego
sets and elements.
But like I said, more complex sets would probably require a more tradional
review approach. I guess I am riding the fence on this whole built v.
not-built review approach...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
