 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) The function of the Spotlight pages is to highlight newsworthy or otherwise interesting tidbits as objectively -- the good, the bad, the ugly, etc. -- without filtering it through opinion if possible. Additionally, to avoid mentioning (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I'm guessing because it *is* an important news item for fans, regardless of morality, and therefore not doing so would be a form of censorship? But yeah, it struck be as being a wee bit odd too until I hit upon that line of thinking. :) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Ah, but the law of diminishing returns states.... :) :) Richard (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Not to mention the increase in happiness about being able to debate about it... <duck> James (URL) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Todd, what bothers me most about this whole debate is: If you're so concerned about the legality or morality of posting the scans and list of products, why did you link to them from your spotlight page? --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) How so? I am more than 20 times increased in happiness than the average increase in happiness of those 20 other fellas... so the larger overall level of happiness is on my side... :-) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
It is certainly true that Todd and Suzanne's opinions count for an awfull lot here. That is primarily because they have EARNED our respect. Anyone could have created a central LEGO resource, and many have. Some of them are highly respected, others (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) No, no, no. Your need for 20 isn't less valid than someone else's need for 1. But 20 persons needing one getting satisfied _does_ make for a larger overall level of happiness. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) God, I hope not. StarOffice is almost buggier and more bloated than MSOffice. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) "Well, we sold out of the $230 gray market Nikon FM2n, but we do have this $280 US version - look, it even comes with warranty and everything!" Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) ie. "bait'n'switch". It seems to be extremely common with camera shops, and it _can_ get you into trouble - but it takes a lot. And one obviously misentered price doesn't cut it. Same with a $"3.00" Rolex - a "reasonable man" can know that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) <shrug> Not much of an insight, mostly just a "holy! What's happening on Lugnet today??!?", then taking a step back and trying to see both sides. Plus, I've thought about this a fair bit because I'm (apparantly) an "expert" on some topics, and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) I guess it never really sunk in. I always used to talk exactly like this (strongly asserted opinions) on RTL too, so from my internalized point of view, not much has changed. But I guess some things have. Hmmmmm. (...) You're probably right. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) <snipped the rapidly-becoming-irrelevant catalogue stuff> (...) (No flames here, just some wandering thoughts...) I don't think that it's that simple. It's fairly obvious from the posts that there is a perception of your and Suzanne's words (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Whoops, that's not to say that her reasons weren't well-intentioned. I just meant she had other reasons (legal, etc.) beyond that due to extensive knowledge, etc. --Todd (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
