 | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
(...) No, I wasn't trying to imply that, although I may have inadvertantly (rereading back on the thread). It might be (arguably) less good for the community, but certainly not "bad" - anything that keeps our favorite toy in circulation sounds (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: MSRP? Tangential question Was(re CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
(...) Yes, showing MSRP in non-US$ is a future enhancement... (But conversion is not; aside from temporal eddies in the exchange rates, things may simply cost more or less in another country... For example, in Germany this year you can buy for DM (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I figured you did. I thought others might not. BTW, I stole the pun from somewhere, but I don't remember where. It could even have been RTL. I'd add another pun, but I'm no good at them. Steve (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: shills on eBay
|
|
(...) I think that's a good idea. (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: shills on eBay
|
|
I am not sure I'd call it a "shill" but I think it's reasonable, if you decide to run a joint RTL/eBay auction, to set up another id, post feedback stating that it is a proxy for the high RTL bidder and that you'll tell who if emailed (tough to do (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | MSRP? Tangential question Was(re CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote: <major snippage> (...) 1975 and that it cost 8.85 pounds MSRP. Why not either show the price in USD converted, or show it in pounds? Or is that a future enhancement? (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) That would have been so much funnier if you had said "male members" instead of "male part"..... Sorry, had to say it. :) (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I was just smiling because you are periodically amusing. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) A friend of mine described it, in a tone he only uses for withering scorn, as "Ken and Barbie Save the Universe, containing all the intellectual fiber of a goat's diet." After I saw it, it struck me that he might have been too kind. :) James (...) (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
<slrn7c7dti.4ol.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> <F712sH.2HC@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Gratuitous nudity for no other reason than to keep the audience awake hoping it might happen again (well, the (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Hrmmm, lemme think. I got it from BigStar - (URL) usually check in on these two sites to find good deals on DVDs: (URL) Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials (URL) (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada) (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium (had to look that one up), boron. --Steve (URL) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
|
(...) Surely you're not trying to imply that people who are fans of Lego but don't take part in on-line discussion groups are any less deserving of buying Lego? (I know that's not implied by your definition of 'community', which I think is (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Hey Mike, I wouldn't mind getting ST for 9.99- where did you score that? -John (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Exactly. You're better off with the book. I think the movie was little more than a showcase for cool computer-gore graphics. I try to separate books from movies, but this one was a real sacrilege. Jesse (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36c3bfe8.6485570@lu...et.com>... (...) of it (...) He (...) Well, I'll agree that it could have been a whole lot more. I think if the directors had taken a different approach it would have been a lot better. I think they (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Boron? :-) My .02... I thought it was rather bad myself. It looked good, and parts of it were cool, but afterward I left feeling a little cheated. And even more telling, my nephew (10 at the time) said it sucked. And that surprised me. He (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) I just got Starship Troopers for $9.99 on DVD. I remember it as a fairly mediocre movie. Except for that shower scene maybe... (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Damn straight. (...) So did Starship Troopers, only without the masculine men. I liked Last Action Hero too. Can't pass up an Arnold movie. Except perhaps Commando. I also liked For Love Or Money with Michael (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Frog
|
|
(...) Because most of them are pansies and they don't appreciate movies filled with masculine men and naked women? Not that all your favorite movies have those elements, but the fifth element did. :) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
