 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Hi John, I wasn't actually referring to you personally... more the continuous TLC-bashing I've seen from some people, and not just on this subject. Makes you wonder why some people bother frequenting LUGNET, or buying LEGO, at all, if they (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Perhaps there are different connotations of the term "limited"? "Limited" in that we will purposefully limit production to X number of units to create collector demand, and will never produce them again, thus protecting their collector's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure that the 10152 wasn't either. This whole thing seems to turn on a mistranslation more than anything else. That's pretty funny at one level, actually. Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the duck wasn't marketed as a "limited edition of 10,000". It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves them (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) around the Transition Team a few months back. Not sure what effect it had or how to "fix" some of the things (one of his theories is that some things are fundamentally unfixable)... (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) I just want to make one thing clear. Merely because I have a gripe about a particular decision made by TLC, that doesn't mean I am throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I love LEGO (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I promised myself I wouldn't continue fanning the flames here, but I couldn't resist one more... The gist of the complaints against TLC I'm hearing is they've made a business decision that "changed" from an earlier "promise" (neither of which (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) MAJOR SNIPAGE (...) The problem doesn't lie within the community it lies within the company. Proof of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their efforts they are still loosing money. I missed The whole Marsk debate but let's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) For your amusement: (URL) #203 (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Oh come on now! What's wrong with a civilized, lively debate? That's what Lugnet is for, beside listening to wonderful news coming to us occasionally from THE MOUTH OF LEGO (imagine raving orcish minifig hordes in the background ...)* Agreed, (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
As an outsider looking in, it appears to me that if the "Liberals" what power all they have to do is shout about god a bit and bash gays a little. It is that simple! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Space: Obsidian Stealth Strike Craft for sale - The Brickee Mart
|
|
(...) I hope you guys (including Marc Sandlin) didn't think I thought i was copied on! As I said, my ship and Chris' are similar, but i don't think he even saw mine when he did his. I never meant to accuse Chris, let that be clear please! I was (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
(...) I can't speak to that question. It's not the argument I've made and I do not think that it's the argument that Peter (the New Republic editor) made either. I think rather he's making the argument to his own brethren that they are missing the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's over, please...
|
|
Um, you do realize that the issue has ended. Please stop facilitating the discussion. I've been enlightened and have changed my ways of going about posting messages here and seeing the AFOL community in general. Ergo: It's over. Let it die. I was (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
(...) If the argument is that all liberals have no validity because of Michael Moore, and therefore Kerry lost, why then hasn't every conservative lost because of the Big Fat Lying Drug-Addict? :-) -->Bruce<-- League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism
|
|
Being against the war in Iraq does NOT mean being for Totalitarian Islam. Or, why Kerry lost and why Michael Moore is still a weenie... From The New Republic, specifically here: "A Fighting Faith (AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM.) by Peter Beinart (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Okay, now that *is* pretty ridiculous, and they're succumbing in real, large-scale terms to the false dichotomy you identified. Outside of your direct experience, most of what I've heard has defaulted to "we have rules that apply to everyone (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Which is what I favor. And what I think Buckley favors too, although it would surely be harder to convince you of that than me. He's a knee jerk old school conservative but even stopped clocks are right twice a day (well, once a day if they're (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) As long as the threat profile is reasonably specific and based on sound policy, rather than "I think that guy looks Arabish/let's frisk him," which is what Buckley's describing. Here's the part where he plays his hand: "The point is not (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just say no
|
|
(...) Seems pretty clear to me (1). He's asking why make things easier for the hordes of people that clearly are little no threat whatever in order to be a bit less PC to people that fit the threat profile more closely? Quoting from the part you (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
