Subject:
|
Re: Names of things.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:17:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Richie, I think this will be my last response to you. If Ben chooses to
> respond I will respond to that, but I am now starting to wonder if you're
> deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying, for whatever reason.
>
> Let's go back to what Ben said, shall we? To wit:
>
> "The "Dark Shark" [what most people mistakenly refer to as the "Black Seas
> Barracuda"]:"
>
> Note that there is no qualification about Australia in this statement.
> Merely that "most people" are "mistaken" when the use BSB.
And note that I almost entirely post in .loc.au and that this was the forum
used, and the message was intended for an Aussie audience. After all, I
COULD have posted in .general if I was arguing with the rest of the world.
[As a side note, do you mean that when someone posts in .marketplace [or
.loc.us...] about a S@H or "TARGET" sale that is on, then it applies to
everyone, or are we supposed to assume that without a country, it's only US,
and that the poster should have the same sort of questions levelled at them?
(ie. why are you saying this is world-wide when my local store doesn't have
it?)]
> Which "most" people would that be? The UK has more people than Oz does. And
> the US in turn more than the UK.
see above.
> So it's doubtful that "most people" are mistaken, unless Ben is asserting
> that "Dark Shark" is *the only* (not "a") correct name, or that we're all
> confused about populations.
And seeing as I ONLY posted in .loc.au, you may think "maybe he means that
this is the name given to the set in the country that the message is posted
in the specific forum for and that the message is intended for a SPECIFIC
audience?"
> and further on
>
> "Oh yes...and it shows that LEGO use the Seppo names for sets instead of the
> names they originally gave the sets."
>
> Overlooking the mislabeling (at this point, to be expected, he always is SO
> insistently insulting with that charming label), the assertion is that LEGO
> originally gave one set of names for sets and changed it *later* to another
> set of names. Not "in Australia" but globally, since it is unqualified.
Unqualified, maybe...posted to a specific audience in a specific forum
certainly.
> I dispute that. I don't think it was that way at all. I think LEGO, for
> whatever misguided reason, chose several names for the same thing at the
> same time. (1)
Probably...in general each country got its own catalogue each year [in many
countries these had to be purchased.] with the sets named for that country.
> Now let *Ben* either put up (proving his claim that Dark Shark is THE right
> name) or clarify and admit he was being unclear, or say nothing... but let
> Ben do it, not you, please.
OK...
I don't have a 1989 Australian catalogue at present [anyone with a spare
available? ]
1990: catalogue number 921388-AUS
Page 20: 6285 $199.95
The Pirate Ship "Dark Shark"...
[6274 is the "Sea Hawk", 6276 is the Govenor's Fort Sabre, 6245 is Govenor
Broadside's Boat [which explains why the mini-fig has that style hat :) ]]
1991: catalogue number 921640-AUS
Page 18: 6285 $239.95
The Pirate Ship "Dark Shark"...
[new for this year: 6273, 6259, 6234, and 6267]
1992: catalogue number 922038-AUS
Page 20: 6285 $239.95
The Pirate Ship "Dark Shark"...
[new: 6258, 6261, 6247 "Admiral's Launch", 6277 "Port Royal", 6271 Admiral's
ship "Sea Lion"]
In 1993 [922710-AUS] set 6286 "The Black Skull" arrived to replace the "Dark
Shark".
[as an additional note: in the "The Pirates Medallion" comic book [set 6255]
102703-UK [note: UK, *NOT* AUS] also labels the ship the "Dark Shark" so it
isn't ONLY Australia!]
> Or let Ben just remain silent, proving he's just a AEEA whinger.
Have I ever claimed to be anti-everything-except-Australia? I'm more against
having one country getting preferential treatment, both by having a much
better range, special S@H codes, and then having set names used in this
country FORCED on others where there was no reason to do this.
> 1 - and I hope they never do it ever again, as it's a big waste of effort
> and money, as it requires wasteful packaging designs, prevents easy resale
> in different countries, causes relatively pointless discussions, etc. etc.
WELL...It's only the US/Canada/Mexico markets that would have this
problem...except for left-overs that sometimes wash up over here, all sets
sold in Australia have no set name [excluding Star wars, harry potter [from
memory] and alpha team underwater sets [also from memory]] and none have
piece count...and I think this is standard everywhere EXCEPT for the
US/Canada/Mexico markets, so really the only extra expence is to add these
for these specific markets...at least that's how it appears to me :)
Benjamin Whytcross
[wanting Lego to keep using the names they originally gave sets in various
countries instead of automatically using one from a country that has used
incorrect set numbers for sets (after all, the company is Danish, therefore
sets produced there have the correct set number (set 928 for example...in
addition, the brick on the side confirms the set number.)]
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Names of things.
|
| (...) Excluding catalogs of course, which *do* have set names, and would thus require extra expense in (at least) Aus as well... ROSCO (22 years ago, 12-Oct-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
| | | Re: Names of things.
|
| <respectfully snipped> (...) </end respectfully snipped> I have totally different catalogues, I did collect them while living in Queensland. But the most interesting thing is that some of them are printed in Germany. Unfortunely I don't have the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Oct-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
| | | Re: Names of things.
|
| (...) Noted. However qualification still would have been helpful. Saying "most people", without qualification, even in an Australia specific forum, is hopelessly Australia centric. (...) You're preaching to the choir, I've always agreed with you and (...) (22 years ago, 14-Oct-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Names of things.
|
| Richie, I think this will be my last response to you. If Ben chooses to respond I will respond to that, but I am now starting to wonder if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying, for whatever reason. Let's go back to what Ben said, (...) (22 years ago, 12-Oct-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
