 | | Re: You get to choose! (first none-"Wow"-answer)
|
|
(...) Hi Jake and people at lego.direct, I am not glad about the idea of the legends at all (in the way they are done so far). I gave my opinions in lugnnet.trains when the Metroliner 10001 has been released (That is in fact the only train set I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) Spoken like a collector without regard for what others may or may not have in their collections. I see this as a kind of greed on your part, pure and simple. Others, who for reasons of youth or having made different spending choices in the (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) I have to jump in and add my agreement to this post. Speaking as someone who did not have the opportunity to get the Battrax when I was younger, I am thrilled to have another chance at getting it now that I have the purchasing power to do so. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
"J. Irvine" <irvinej@accuvera.com> wrote in message news:GuGM3J.6po@lugnet.com... (...) who (...) purchasing (...) close (...) I agree here with this - when I was younger I had a couple of small Classic Space sets but they disappeared a long time (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) I tried to not to be too much of a "me too" person around Lugnet, but I thought I would have to throw in my agrument here too. On Beneke's opinion. When I was younger, I never had a chance to get my hands on a Battrax, Yellow Castle or even a (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) Amen! I have to agree. And I, for one, have grown up with UFO, town JR, and Insectoids, and believe me, I ain't happy with it! :-) Lego Legends are supposed to be that: legends. I think that if you don't count a set as a legend just because (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) Yeah. I was stuck with excuses for space for quite a while until Star Wars hit the market. (and I joined Lugnet) (...) Yeah. For months I wanted a Guarded Inn before it became a legend, and there was *no way* I would blow one hundred dollars (...) (23 years ago, 13-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Legends: good or bad?
|
|
XPFUT .general <snipped it all> First off, this is XPFUT'd to .general because I'd like to spark an intelligent conversation about the Legends line. I don't want this to turn into some kind of argument or debate. Ben, I can understand your point as (...) (23 years ago, 13-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) Just turn the medal and I tell you: it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends... (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?) (...) I do not own one that deserves the name 375. So your argument is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Desiring Machine (was Re: You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps -- there is certainly desire for certain elements. I think we would all be served better by more selection in the accessory packs, but if the only way to get some things are going to be the Legend and Classics lines, then so be (...) (23 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: You get to choose! (first none-"Wow"-answer)
|
|
(...) I don't agree at all. Most of us would rather buy a rereleased legend (if it was the theme they liked) than any of the sets available on the shelves right now. The legends available are 10 times better than most of the sets that are now on the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: You get to choose! (first none-"Wow"-answer)
|
|
Yes, I would agree...the legends and re-issues are all super. They are the ONLY new sets (other than a few Star Wars and Harry Potter sets) that I have purchased since '97. LEGO, are you listening? Like many others, I have spent thousands of $$ in (...) (23 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Greed?
|
|
(...) Greed? GREED?? G R E E D?!?!?! Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I. But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375. ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed? I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.castle, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Nah, I could easily see myself buying one for the sheer desire to actually get my hands on something so phenominal I never had a chance to acquire. I think desire is a better word. (...) I've never seen anyone who hordes yelloe castle parts, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Yes, perhaps it is. Ben is E2L(1), please keep that in mind, and sometimes that causes misunderstanding. Reading over your words and his, I don't find that much disagreement, believe it or not. (I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Thanks for elaborating on that! I too knew that English was his 2nd Language and therefore I endeavored to point out that the discrepancy may exist in translation. (...) I tried too… I hope I didn’t come across as impolite. I like Ben and (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Sorry Richard, English is not my mother tongue. So why did I use the word greed here? As a matter of fact I have not used that word since ever - I had to look into my dictionary to cheack the meaning of "greed". I only have used this word, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Actually, Ben, I think you mean me -- I used the word first. There are two Richards underfoot at this point -- the best way to tell the difference between us is that the other Richard is younger and better looking than I am. =oP -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) Thanks for jumping in, HopFrog. And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names.... Kind Regards, Ben (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes: <snip> (...) Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it. Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) and thanks for that. Sorry if I used your post as a periodic reminder to folks that not everyone is E1L and to keep it in mind.... (...) Roger that! Got any marshmallows for the campfire? (...) :-) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | .
|
|
(...) Your English usage is still quite excellent nevertheless! :) (...) Different individual. (But that’s already been clarified.) Usually when I make a point I endeavor to debate the issues and not the character of the individual. (...) I do (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | WhAt EvEr!
|
|
(...) Man, do I ever feel despondent… I've been here for over 2 years and I'm still second-string to the ‘other’ Richard… (no matter how much he likes me) ;) ~After all, we’ve got two totally different signatures: Mr. Marchetti has the clever, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Greed?
|
|
(...) My guess is that LD was waiting to see how well the first one did before committing to doing any more. I'm sure there is a large lead-time for new sets like this, and since it was kept secret until its release, we have no way of knowing how (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: WhAt EvEr!
|
|
(...) You've been here for two years already? Good Lord am I old. (...) That may be why you're second-fiddle. Too many people keep trying to pronounce that...thing. (...) Durst is supposedly musical, and Wilt is worth ten thousand.... (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.people)
|
| |
| | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) USC? I don't think I'm up on my acronyms. It's not the cardboard itself that I mind, but the fact that the box can't be re-closed to contain the pieces inside. (...) Well, LEGO started it with the whole "Use this box for storage" deal on the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
|
(...) The UCS sets are a rotten example. Whoever designed the UCS Tie and X-Wing boxes should be strangled, hanged, and SHOT. Those are the flimsiest, most useless boxes I've seen out of Lego. They are double the size they need to be (and at half (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | 10018 & 10019 packed same as other UCS sets? (was:Packaging Style)
|
|
The subject tells all. I ask this in light of 10018 and 19 being sent to stores. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: 10018 & 10019 packed same as other UCS sets? (was:Packaging Style)
|
|
"Jeremy Scott" <Copyright@cox.net> wrote in message news:GutMwL.BGv@lugnet.com... (...) The RBR from S@H is in the same style large flimsy box as the UCS sets. I doubt they'd change much going to retail. Does the retail version have a coloured (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.starwars)
|
