To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *15991 (-40)
  Re: My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) You say you want it to die but you have to try to get in the last word? Jude (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  My closing thoughts on the Free Super Chiefs
 
Thank you all for your thoughts. When originally posting, I thought that all replies would be positive. A few people would say "fun story", another few tell of a similar incident, etc. However, I didn't assume that we would go into the ethical and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) The last two people I knew who had lost their wallets had them returned by complete strangers with nothing missing. It's not that uncommon! Anyway, on this whole ownership/possession of goods issue please remember that WE don't possess Lego (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Mega Bloks IPO
 
It's a shame that owning bricks cannot be considered owning stock in the company. My shares would be small, but there are those in the LUGNET community that would be the equivalent of Donald Trumps in the brick business. Todd (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs (I Called LSAH)
 
(...) GET IT IN WRITING!!!!!!! Todd (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
To point out a few flaws in the logic... (...) Not really the same thing as buying two and walking out the door with 2 you didn't pay for. If you buy two and then go to another line and buy two more, or perhaps drive across town to buy two more, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) fair. (...) I've just gotta say, what's the big deal about the limited editions? I'm guessing there'll be no order limit on the non-numbered version, I'm also guessing the answer to the question is often "profit on the secondary market". If (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs (I Called LSAH)
 
To make all of us happy: I called LSAH and the lady told me all was okay, this happens often. If I wanted to pay for them I could but I said i'd rather keep them for free or have them sent back at the cost of Lego. She said, "keep it then." (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
Note: It is against my rules to post here but because of the recent activity, which was caused by me, I decided to break that rule to address this issue and not ignore it. However, I am not here to stay... (...) James, Thanks for the apology. My (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) I think it's still debatable. Of course I mentioned that depending on the circumstances, I would take the effort to help the sender correct their mistake. While I don't call my self a Christian, it is certainly in my values to try and be fair. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) I would also hope the receiving party would at least say something about it! There was a situation in my past when a family member found 2500 dollars (CDN so like 50 bucks for you Americans ;) ) in a parkinglot somewhere. He did not put an ad (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
Ok these are all good points, and I would like to apologize to Jeremy for my earlier "you're a thief and so is your daddy!" post. I agree that my tone was a bit harsh, now that it’s past lunch and I’m settled in for a calmer afternoon I will (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) Now this is a discussion :) 'Tis true, if *I* have something that I did not pay for, which should have been paid for, it is stealing. If I knowingly went to a store and stuck something in my pocket and walked out, that is stealing. If the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) Darn. Good points. After I posted, it occurred to me that my analogy was flawed, but it was too late. (...) Legally, sure. But the issue was "is it stealing based on Xian values?" and I think it fairly clearly was. Dave! (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) In the first example, if the item was addressed to you, it would be the same. See below for analysis. If it was not addressed to you, then keeping it is stealing. This is different in a material way. Helping yourself to three off the delivery (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) I think it is fair that LD kindly put the limit in place when they realized it would help even distribution. Don't get ticked off because you did not order 20+ when you had the chance, after all we all had the same window, which I think is (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) First, it's not a "right" but a privilege of opportunity dependent upon TLC's policies. Second, TLC can produce as many or as few as they wish, and they can impose whatever purchasing limits they care to impose, whenever they care to impose (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) Okay then, not fair is that tons of people ordered 20 + right off the bat before the limit was in place and now I am denied the right to get three more? Come on. (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) As a hypothetical example, if you had ordered $1000 worth of LEGO and it was delivered to me in error, would you accuse me of stealing if I kept it and didn't pay for it? Or how about if I saw three Super Chiefs sitting on a delivery cart and (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) I had originally indended to post this following the first reply, but my e-mail server was down and by the time it was back up, two others had replied, so i deleted my authentication. But I see that this is going to continue ;), so i'll jump (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Free Super Chiefs
 
(...) No I would not, I would assume the limit was set in place for a reason, even if I didn't like it. It's their store and they can set any limits they want, I don't have to shop there. (...) Fair?! Nice way to rationalize. Maybe they realize that (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
 
This thread got me thinking. As you may or may not know, my site is called 'LEGO on my Mind'. (URL) visual motto of this site has always been a picture of a man with bricks for brains. After it had been around a couple of years, another site (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Time to write Lego Consumer Affairs a (nasty) letter..
 
(...) You know what I mean. =) Though I have to admit that the 2000-2002 products lines have been superior to the things they were producing before.. 10.9 cent apiece? What sets are you buying? Surely not Jack Stone! (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Important Questions
 
(...) Hejsan! (...) Yes. (...) Only if they make it out of anti-matter and keep it away from 1 x 16 beams. (...) 3,4% of my Technic figs are left handed while 97% of my minifigs did not hear the question due to ear-lack. Of the 3% that gave me an (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Important Questions
 
(...) Only if "YOU ARE INSIDE A BUILDING, A WELL HOUSE FOR A LARGE SPRING", or "YOU ARE IN A LARGE ROOM, WITH A PASSAGE TO THE SOUTH, A PASSAGE TO THE WEST, AND A WALL OF BROKEN ROCK TO THE EAST" and "THERE IS A LARGE "\'Y2' ON A ROCK IN THE ROOM'S (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Important Questions
 
Greetings all, It seems to me that LUGNET could use a good lighthearted release from all the friction that's gone on here recently. To that end, I've developed a list of questions that I think we ought to consider... If you're exploring a mammoth (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Santa Fe War Bonnet sticker alternative
 
(...) Hellow! First, I'm directing this to offtopic. (Jared is my best friend) Jared, I would reccomend you to look around- and figure out when to move to another newsgroup! As for the spiffcraft... I need your digital camera! I've rendered it, but (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you. A lot of people had expressed their opinions on this subject, you included. When Scott Arthur did so, this suddenly became wrong, and had to be pointed out? I can't see any logic in this, sorry. It's not (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Not the most constructive title Ben!
 
Judge not lest ye be judge Benjamin! . .. ... .... ..... ...... ....... ........ Spydèr ........ ...... ..... .... ... .. . Fading back into the night… (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) Incidentally, that is why I set FUT .debate. Scott A (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Spyder is definitely bad for lugnet
 
(...) (URL) his 11 posted "newsgroup articles", and his (surge of 4 most recently), I would largely suggest that his input is for the most part negative. I wouldn't stoop personal name calling against him directly. This really doesn't do anything to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)  
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) Indeed, and why? Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) If you mean Larry P'k, he has already done that at least once. Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) Scott will do. (...) Good. (...) To you. Perhaps, even to me. (...) Perhaps we can talk about that once you demonstrate how you give others a hard time when they post a message in a dead thread? Or perhaps you were stirring the pot? What am I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) Actually, he did. It didn't make front page news (I mean, evidently you didn't notice it). Which bolsters Scott's point, doesn't it? Maggie C. (who knows she should just shut up and stay out of this whole thing) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
I’m afraid I did not misspeak. Personally, I thought Tim’s post was self-indulgent{1}. I chose the term “melodramatics”, as I thought it was relatively innocuous. I suppose I’ll have to be even more careful in the future! Scott A {1} That's just my (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) Let me put it this way so you'll understand. For someone knowledgeable in general, (Dr.) Scott Arthur stated the "shared" view on the highlights of the newsposting to lugnet.general... if he found it so offensive, then why did he highlight it (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) For the record, just in case I was being a little obtuse, I concur with Scott, et al. that they are entitled to their opinion that mayhaps Tims Hiatus shouldn't have been listed in the Top Stories. Tho, when you look at it, if Suz took a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) (not cutting out anything so as to not be accused of trying to manipulate the argument) (Dr. Scott) Arhur, I don't think anybody here is trying to prevent you from stating your view. My point was that your view was already expressed at least (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: On Hiatus
 
(...) There have been issues in LUGNET, and there have been long, drawn out threads to help resolve these issues, and there has even been some 'flame wars' 'n such, but what I continue to notice, time and time again, is that much comes from the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more | 40 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR