 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMCELH.J2s@lugnet.com... (...) By the way, it's the law of diminishing _marginal_ returns, and all it states is that at _some_ point, additional units of a good will provide (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
(...) It was said as being common in Europe by a couple of folks, as well as being said to happen in a couple of US TRU's. I will say there's a store I shop in that makes it available to customers, if not for display. But they seem to have several (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Catalog scans - TLC stance
|
|
(...) This has been said a couple of times (that these are frequently displayed in stores), but in the various threads here, I've only seen 1 person state that 1 store has done this. I also have never personally seen one of these catalogues - and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) Hellooo LEGOnauts, I have to say that a set does consist of unique pieces and the common pieces that make up a model. These can come from any source, such as *the storage box* or the original package. The original box is not necessary for this (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if you're interested in the zen of sets. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been more specific. Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link: (URL) Not to be taken too seriously! Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first released. For the purposes of having (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) It comes from lawyers and politicians and owners of corporations. If they don't make a statement a subject, then they've neither blessed it or cursed it, and they have an open field to react to later developments. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) In lugnet.technic, Michael Edwards writes: (...) Looks like someone got the first slap! regards lawrence (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique pieces, such as the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:384F3A51.4FCDDF...faq.com... (...) scans" (...) TLC (...) not for (...) SHOW us (...) Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in response to another (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't always evidence. (...) Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in .debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently. My view is that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
Well, the other side of the coin is that YOU, and ONLY you, knew the full details of what they did/did not say was OK. All we have to go on is the Fair Use Policy posted on lego.com. We (the unwashed <g>) won't know any better unless the Policy is (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Whoops, darn it, I did it again. I meant this message, (URL) #2743. Sorry. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) (Just re-reading what I just wrote) Bad wording -- I didn't mean that to sound like a back-handed slap. And I don't mean to demean educated guesses. I just meant that maybe the tone of this message, (URL) a bit strong, given the known facts. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as I dislike "tooting the horn," I also try not to keep important things like that secret, assuming I am able to say one way or the other. In October of 1997, for example, I did mention that Suzanne and I had had a meeting with two (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) As much as this thread has stirred up some strong feelings (no real anger on my part - hope there isn't on most other peoples') this made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Pssst, hurry up... while they're still quiet. Bring up the cans and the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
