 | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —Dave Lovelace
|
| | | (...) John's the king...he got the sealed 6806 and 6807, too, I believe. He would have been able to get it for $1200 or so (about five bucks over my max) were it not for some no-namer who dropped a $2222 bid at the last minute. John's original bid (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —John York
|
| | | | | First I have to apologize to Dave for outbidding him. I hated doing that, but with the rest of my collection nearly complete, I had to get this set. As most of us know how rare this set is, I doubt that we'll ever see another one...with that said I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Dang, wow. Did he say when (what year) he bought it? --Todd (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —John York
|
| | | | | | | | I believe he just bought it a couple weeks ago!!! (...) was (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Egad -- he may get stuck with short-term capital gains taxes. :) Not a bad problem to have with that kind of a gain, though. :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | Great news for collectors of Classic Space, and indeed any other themes: (URL) J Railton (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | (...) (URL) to the bottom of the page.) Maggie C. (trying to decide whether to 'fess up about my harrowing caffeine addiction) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Mark Morgan
|
| | | | | | | (...) Isn't this article about 10 days early? Mark (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hey, every monthly magazine on the market is a whole month and a half early, why can't the Onion be ten days ahead? ;) best LFB (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | To All, (...) Well, both Black & Veatch and Cleanweb filtered out this site. What is the summary of this? Secondly, what is on there that would make this site filterable (Keep in mind LUGNET's usage policy, of course!) Scott S. -- Personal Page: (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Clark Stephens
|
| | | | | | | Scott, The story is a parody making fun of the collectible market. It states that everything currently manufactured is instantly collectible & gives values for some things, including the lint in your pocket. It also parodies the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —George Haberberger
|
| | | | | | (...) Scott, Theonion is filtered at my workplace, though I don't know what web filter is being used. I imagine it's for the humor, which can be raunchy at times. Somewhat akin to National Lampoon, when it was funny. George (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | George & All, (...) Ah, I see. Hmm.. It is just like Cleanweb, they filtered official gun makers websites as well. Lovely service. Anyway, thanks for the info! Scott S. -- (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) You can always go check the site of Senator Dick Armey, who is one of the staunchest proponents of censorware...oh, wait. His site is blocked out by all known filter programs. ;) There's a site devoted to censorware foibles, including a high (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | | Lindsey, (...) Tit for tat. B&V does not block his site. I am sure I can get on it with cleanweb as well. Anyway, I know a few liberals that love censorship as well, like Libermann (SP?), for instance, where I disagree with some of the conservative (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Lieberman is a conservative. Why he is in the Democratic party is beyond me. Bruce (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Interesting response. I wasn't trying to be political (thus why I didn't identify Armey by party or state). But I went to Armey because, at one time, he was having problems with censorware blindly blocking him. (Apparently it's been fixed, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Censoring Unpopular Speech? (Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!)) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This censorship topic reminds me of something that my mom told me about a couple of weeks ago; it seems that she was listening to AM talk radio at some unusual hour, and found a program devoted to cigar enthusiasts - as its often fun to listen (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Censoring Unpopular Speech? (Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!)) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.fun, James Simpson writes: Forgive my bad etiquette in replying to my own post, but I neglected to set FUT to debate. james (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Censoring Unpopular Speech? (Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Out of curiosity, were the warnings broadcast by government decree or by voluntary (perhaps preemptive) participation of the station? (...) Maybe it should have played continuously on a looping subliminal track! 8^) Seriously, I would think (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Censoring Unpopular Speech? (Re: Good news for collectors (was Re: 1593 box photos!)) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) Whether the warning was mandatory or voluntary, I do not know; assuming it was voluntary, it was a) because of government strong-arming, or b) because of private-interest strong-arming. (...) Point well-taken. People who engage in dangerous (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 1593 box photos! (was: Re: you guys noticed this auction? - Wow!) —Bob Parker
|
| | | | (...) That's an interesting method of bidding - picking the maximum bid amount to be the same as the set number. Thank goodness this set wasn't numbered in the 6000's! - Bob (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
