Subject:
|
Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:46:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
672 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Sophie writes:
> > Thanks for the effort, but this is part of Lugnet's problem. We don't need
> > to be so specific, we don't need to define ourselves. We know what we do.
> > Let's be careful not allow a post to begin making us go crazy. Were into
> > Lego. Period. You want to go and get a dictionary....well your missing the
> > point.
> >
> > BTW the dictionary thing was not aimed at you Mathew, but thanks for getting
> > us an official entry.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Eric
>
> <snip>
>
> Sooooo, what are you saying...we should all remain ignorant and let somebody
> else define things for us?
----Hold it right there. I step aside for that. Your absolutely right.
> I was merely trying to correct the method that
> was being used to define a collector. To say that a collector is simply a
> person who collects things...well, that definition assumes that you already
> know what it means to collect. Obviously some folks in this thread didn't
> really know the differnce.
----ok, no biggie.
> Also, Mark has attempted to point out that there is popular definition
> of "collect" that does not fit the official one and that he prefers not to
> be confused with this new popular definition of "collect". Fortunately one
> of the cited definitions helped him to clarify his case further.
>
> Don't be surprised if a future publication defines "collect" as
> "gathering up to achieve completeness", or something to that effect. This
> happens all the time, just look at a dictionary of about thirty years ago
> and you will find that sexuality has nothing to do with the definition of
> "faggot".
-----dude, com'on
> Yes, we do need to get detailed when trying to explain who we are. I'm
> with Mark, I am not a collector in the popular sense, I am gathering up lego
> so that I can build stuff.
----right on, me too
> If I could find some use for beanie babies, I
> might gather a few up, however I could more easily gather the materials at a
> fabric shop. For those of us who build with lego, it isn't quite that easy
> to find a general brick shop:^)
>
> ~Kirby
---Thanks Kirby
-----Yes, a natural evolution of a successful product will bring these
things up. I'll just continue to define my building style and if TLC wants
some consumer input I'll tell em, : I want access to Bulk amounts of every
single Piece made and in every color. Fact is TLC has always been smart
about making Lego "Collectible". I tell'n you guys, and you know it too.
Look at all the sets that have that one cool piece in it that a certain
color. Or it's only available in one set. Come on everybody. Why do you
think it cost me $1800.00 to build my Praying Mantis, or $2000.00 for the
Black Robot. Or why It cost me $4500.00 for the Robot I'm building now. TLC
has made me struggle for years in search of peices. Feel my Pain Brothers!
Collectable, Classic. All of that. Every part of Every possibility of Lego
and it's impact on people will happen.
----How this relates to the rest of the thread is up to you. Just some thoughts.
Legomaster
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
| (...) <snip> (...) <snip> Sooooo, what are you saying...we should all remain ignorant and let somebody else define things for us? I was merely trying to correct the method that was being used to define a collector. To say that a collector is simply (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
