 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Kinda exactly like that, yeah.[1] (...) Yikes. Wow. Well, I'm going to have to tone down my opinions then, if it came across that way. More disclaimers needed, or something. Persuade through logical argument, yes. Bully, no. (I'm speaking for (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
You will notice that in the 2000 in set catalog, there is just a page with some info on the dinosaurs sets, no pictures. Thanks to huw we have (had) pictures of them. There is probobly a good reason why the pictures are not in the in box catalog but (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
You mean like the 1886 SW bucket that never showed up, that MIGHT show up now under a 71xx number? Personally, I'll have to agree with Onyx here - no matter how sugar-coated it was, Todd and Suz's posts come across to ME (as in they seemed to ME (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I won't put them up for download, but I'm not opposed to considering the idea of sending them via e-mail since I now have them all zipped up in a nice little file. Note, I didn't say I would do it (nor did I say I wouldn't) - I just said I'm (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Except possibly for reasons of copyright infringement...? (But TLC has never really had a problem with that yet as far as we know...only trademark and trade dress infringement.) (...) Waitasecond, waitasecond! This isn't and never was about (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
Since I know a little bit about law I will give the legal prespective of what Huw did. I personally have never seen one of these retailor catalogs but as long as there was nothing on the catalogue that said "confidential" or for store managers Etc (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) AMEN to that brother (...) what (...) all (...) censor (...) doesn't (...) Hear hear, that sums up my feelings on the whole matter. All I have to offer is that these are just legos, repeat this to yourself, over and over, until your head is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I agree here completely, as I'm sure most know. I've been here since almost the beginning and Lugnet is something I hope will continue to grow and fulfill even more of our AFOL needs and want. Heck, I still want a Lugnet logo baseball cap and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I can see how you could see it that way. But it shouldn't really be surprising that a couple of people who are so insanely in love with a company's product that they would start a fansite devoted entirely to it, would also be correspondingly (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Some facts. 1.Huw does not havethe catolog, he got the pictures from a source, who has not signed any aggrements tthat they would not publicise the information in the dealers catalog, there in nothing anywhere that prohibits redistribution of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Personally, I find this entire scene completely repulsive.. I love this site, I love this community and I enjoy and appreciate every bit of effort that is put into it by everyone (my member dues are in the mail!), I also realize that we are (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Yes. Perhaps in an effort to be uncontroversial[1], you didn't mention the malleable priorities under 1.) above: 1a: Buying 1b: Sorting 1c: Trading 1d: Building 1e: Selling That's just my personal order; YMMV. It's also horribly idealized, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Censorship? Hah! (Was: Somebody help.)
|
|
(...) Then you need to find new friends. (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
<FM5Cyw.4v7@lugnet.com> <slrn84eoh3.3kp.cjc@...s.utk.edu> <FM77oM.12J@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, it's with you for being a slacker and not earning enough to buy it! <grins, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Thankyou for *considering* my points - sometimes it seems like an all too rare thing on usenet forums! (...) I'm trying to resist the pull of cynicism myself, I don't know how well I succeed sometimes! (...) Very true - if you can't be happy (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Censorship? Hah! (Was: Somebody help.)
|
|
I apologise for sounding like such a Jacka** in some of my post. There was this one post in here that had something like this: I'd rather see someone asking on dating instead of getting involved in drugs, alcohol, etc. I hate to say this, but about (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: test
|
|
Eric, This is for off topic debates, which seem to come around to the same discussions, in a different light! :) Here is the actual test page: (URL) S. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | test
|
|
Since I don't see a lugnet.test, I figure a test is off-topic so here it is. Testing 1 2 3 /Eric/ (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) True, but one doesn't want to appear like a prude, although I do have long time friends who insist on sending Christmas cards addressed to "Peter Calloway". Arggggg!!! (...) I think there is a very real distinction. Whilst British humour tends (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) computers (...) One problem here is that there are two mostly separate issues. The first issue is given people have money and good have prices, is the distribution of those goods fair. The second issue is (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
