 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Wow Frank, Well stated! I can't argue with that. One other item of discussion (I'm not sure this was answered, since I'm having server problems, and haven't read all of the lugnet.general posts), Ben had a 1993 Dealer Catalog. Should/can/may he post (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) think.\ Chris (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) We have ONE point of reasonably solid information in this subject: We have a statement from a TLC employee that they could be FIRED for showing a consumer the retailers catalog. Well ok, we have two pieces of evidence. The only way TLC has (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. One piece of evidence that we do have is that they would sack an employee for doing what we have done. Doesn't that suggest that "it does matter" to you? Why should TLC dignify this with a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Actually, NO, with the available evidence (i.e. NOTHING said from TLC so far), it is correct, not wishful thinking. If I would have seen ONE message in here or on lego.com asking that the pics be removed from sites, then I would agree with you that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) (leaping out of bed to follow-up on this) Wait a second. The pictures that went in *were* legitimate consumer catalog photos -- from the sheet catalog/brochure someone got in a copy of a Technic set at a store in the UK, and from one other. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) My understanding of those times is that most people were polite and steered clear of annoying people. I also understand that gunfights were insanely uncommon. Not at all like motion picture portrayal. (I wasn't born in the states either - (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I read somewhere that the brain makes a decision on something then rationalises afterwards, that a whole part of the brain is dedicated to thinking up excuses to arbitarily made decisions. But maybe someone more knowledgable can help me on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
I could reply to most of the post, but I'm hoping to get this entire thread to die down until we hear from TLC. (...) There is no way you will convince me that MegaBloks or many other competitors HAVEN'T already seen those pics, not if their spies (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Sleep? What's...(yawn)...sleep? :-) We're still a bit off-normal-schedule due to the moving Monday. I think I was up for 36 hours and then slept for 6. Pretty tired now, pretty irritable. :-) I shouldn't be posting. Time for bed. --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
You're probably not the only ones that feel that way, you just seem more vehement about it. You make a lot of good points, and I've since taken the pics down off my own web server. On the subject of legality and ethics, my daily job involves making (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) YES! YES! Exactly! --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | But it happened
|
|
The sad thing is, friendships are gonna be strained to breaking point with this 2000 catalogue thing, its gonna keep going back and forth with decent, non cuss included debate (I'd hate to see the email thats flying about) the populace is gonna (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Nope, it just seems that way sometimes at 4:30am. (...) Because you care, not that caring is bad, and not that you care too much. It's just that caring also means getting hurt sometimes too. It's a human thing. But unless I have my timezones (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) No. But I suspect you're the only ones that feel this strongly. I've stated (somewhere) that I honestly don't think it (the scans being out there) makes a difference, BUT that doesn't make it right. Bottom line: Those retailer catalogues are (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Oh, gee, yeah, that certainly justifies it. :-/ First, the retailer catalog was never "released" (to consumers). Retailer catalogs are sent to *retailers* for *retailers* to use for their businesses. Second, to the best of my knowledge, this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Todd, Let's face it, if TLC were THAT worried about the pics in the retailer catalog getting out there, they wouldn't release it so early. It's not rationalizing, it's flat out common sense. If TLC can't imagine that the pics WILL make it on the Web (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FMEvqu.Kr@lugnet.com... (...) <Snip> (...) have (...) That's the point, that's the POINT!.. Selçuk (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Bingo. (...) Bzzt. Rationalizing. --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Your point is? --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I agree, and it's pretty damn sad to watch, IMHO. I *really* wish now that I'd waited just a little longer, back when I added a couple SW pix to the DB after rebelscum.com put them up. It wasn't very much longer after that before legitimate (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) It's easy to do on the web - you can't see other people's expressions or hear their tone of voice (joking, sarcastic, serious, etc.) -Shiri (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Agreed! If such an absurd notion(1) were to be true, then surely the "Wild West" would be known as the "Exceptionally polite West where no-one would ever dream of raising their voices or frowning at another." Richard (1) This is of course my (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Except on those rare occasions things get out of hand? (...) Moving jobs _again_? Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) True. Very True. Now, what point were you trying to make? You haven't gone overboard, I don't think... (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Well of course it's spurious. But so's the original thesis. :-) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Especially a newsgroup that ends in "debate" (...) Not really. I hope most of us don't have a problem with someone telling us they think our ideas and arguments are hogwash from time to time. I sometimes like to throw out a radical opinion (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I probably over-reacted. I do that sometimes. James (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Same here. :( (...) I read most of the debates, but I don't want to venture a guess, I will just wait a few weeks until I have the catalogs in front of me. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn CAD Operator Affiliated Engineers, Inc. Work Page: (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Wasnt meant to be confrontational, just an observation on the difficulties of trying to put the wraps on something one it has escaped onto the Internet. Trying to remove the pictures and the messages is difficult once they are in everyones (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I don't know if I see it as an issue. I was off the net all weekend, and looking on Monday AM I was mostly thinking "darn it- I missed them." I wonder how many of the people that were for taking the pictures down looked at them? Did anyone (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I don't know if I see it as an issue. I was off the net all weekend, and looking on Monday AM I was mostly thinking "darn it- I missed them." I wonder how many of the people that were for taking the pictures down looked at them? Did anyone (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I'm inclined to believe otherwise - but since I can't prove, or even really tell, one way or the other, this is a spurious argument ;) Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) This _is_ the internet, you know. FWIW, to me it sounded like walking the line. If I were in a more paranoid mood than normal, and if I hadn't had all the previous experience with you that I have, it would easily have sounded like mild (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) In the best time-honoured manner of Usenet debate. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Just some minor nits...I putting this into .debate because it feels confrontational to me, and I'm responding in kind. Even if it's not confrontational *at* me. (...) The only rants I saw were people jumping on the "dictatorship" bandwagon. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) My tendency to compress my discussion bites me again somewhat. What I was saying is that in my personal opinion, I think Todd's personal opionion of the effect of clones on our hobby is wrong. I even think that it would be better to have a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: December Riot (Was: Happy December!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy Sproat writes: . (...) Jeremy: We at the 29th parallel celebrate the solstice because it means that cold weather is (maybe) finally approaching. (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: December Riot (Was: Happy December!)
|
|
Fascinating! Where'd you learn all this stuff? Happy holidays, whenever they may fall... (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Yeah? Bummer - I only ever played about with it for about half an hour before, and I found it miraculous to effortlessly load msword docs on my solaris box at work! Not that I needed to of course, as all the documentation I did was in (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Thanks for the vote of confidence. But it's not my intention to "limit how clones are discussed" here, inasmuch as no one is complaining about clones so far. Rather, sensing (from private and publics discussions over many years, plus a survey (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Yep, StarOffice bites. (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
|
(...) Todd, come on. You DO have at least some administrative authority. You do. Right here. I'm not suggesting that you would blacklist Huw over this, because I don't think you would. Heck, if anything I think you're TOO lenient about things you (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) But did you? :) Answers on the back of a 6277 to the usual address... Richard (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Who said I didn't factor that in?? :-) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) You know, while my basic response to this would be, "yeah, I know, some people, through no fault of their own and through no lack of hard work, will simply never make a fraction of the money Larry makes, but that's just reality, we deal with (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Bah, you've got the bigger sigh, you win. No more sighing for me then. *sulk* I was responding mostly to: (...) Which I read as you saying that I said it was wrong/bad whatever, but I've confused myself now, and it's probably not that (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Nah, it's not a fault - stick with it! It's a common courtesy to get someones name right. Just now the web seems to be filled with affluent 'westerners', but when it becomes a more truely global medium, we'll be grateful for all the practice (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) ** sigh ** Well I didn't say you said it was bad. I'm just asking "why, exactly, is it nicer"? (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) A little too subtle, even for me. I've been called "Caltex", "Kelloggs", "Crawlaway" and a few un-postables, but never "Hallway". One minor fault I have is that I can be a bit precious about the spelling of my surname, as very few people get (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Yeah, he signed up at about the same time as Scott Understairs-Cupboard. Ahh... subtle British humour... (1) Richard (1) WHERE HAS IT GONE???!?!?!??!?! (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Who's this Peter Hallway???? Is he new???? Pete Callaway (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) *sigh* I really wrote: -- My personal view is that it's nicer to give 20 people 1 thing, than give 1 person 20 things (related specifically to Lego deals in this example). That doesn't logically extend to saying that the one person who has the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) It's not obtuse, just irrelevant, as I did state that the example was related "specifically to Lego deals" - as I predicted such a response with my amazing predicto-vision, and tried to avoid it :) It did also mention the flaw in trying to (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Why? In other words, why is my need for 20 any LESS valid than anyone elses need for 1? Usually, the market allows me to satisfy my need. IF I am willing to pay more for all 20 than those that want one are willing to, in other words, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) This might seem obtuse, but... Imagine a lunch room at a public school. You have 20 nickles. Do you give 20 hungry kids one nickle each, or give one of them all 20 so they can get lunch? I'm only pointing out exceptions to your 'rule.' Chris (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | December Riot (Was: Happy December!)
|
|
(...) Check. No riots. (...) Um, which verse was that in? AFAIK, there is no mention in the Bible as to the date, or even the season, of Christ's birth. Christmas as a holiday was placed on December 25 by some Pope (an expansionist theologist) (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Umm.... Pizza! :) (...) Not really, most companies do this nowadays. (...) Not really, especially considering if that is one of the things you look for. I can find 20-30 positions in Ann Arbor right now that have health benefits with the job. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I say conecption, you say perception, let's just order a pizza. (...) Scott, I may be opening a huge can-o-worms here, but... You got off pretty easy in terms of health insurance, esp. being covered by your parents after high school. (My dad's (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I think Lego is for making constructions... not making money. As a lot of people know, my aim is to keep it self sufficient. Which is harder for me, as a lot of people are put off by the fact I live in Scotland. (...) A long waffling diatribe (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Jeremy, (...) Misconception? I thought I typed misperception, oh I did. I am glad I can get you to laugh, however! (...) Hmm...I had health insurance from my mom and dad through high school and some college, I didn't have it for three months when I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Thanks for the chuckle, Scott. I promise I won't try to perpetuate a common misconception of America. ;-) However...the first job I was ever offered health care in is my current one as a software developer. No other job I've had -- college lab (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Well, it isn't free, someone is paying for it, whether it be you be the income tax or someone else footing the bill, but this point has been debated ad infinitum in off.topic.debate for a long time (March-September or something?) if you care (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) In the UK, you do not have to have employed to have access to, arguably, one of the best health services in the world (NHS). Everyone here enjoys a health service which is "free at the point of delivery" - ie it is paid for via income tax. If (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Frank, if this is aimed at me, I'd just like to say that I have no problem with anyone making money... even those guys making money on the "S@H only" items on ebay does not bother me all that much (I know this goes against the knapp - no (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
