 | | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) I hold Lego in extremely high regard - you are confusing an honest analysis of Lego on the "collectable toy market" with a derogatory attack. That Lego makes a poor "collectable" is a *good* thing, in my opinion. You need to go back and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) Great point! From a LEGO builder's point of view, I look at unopened or unused LEGO as a waste of fun, creative and exciting possibilities! I think Eric slightly overdid it in his last post by calling Bruce out, as if creativity makes a (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
Hey that's cool Bruce, I got a little out of hand, I re-read the thread and I hear where your comming from, I ussually don't get like that on Lugnet, sorry. You rasied some good points, I hope people can appreciate this as I did. I'm 30, so I feel (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) Why *side* with either? Why are there sides *at all* for that matter? That is what is baffling me. This isn't a territorial war, is it? Both "sides" can "win", can't they? I'm a builder AND a collector and there is nothing wrong with being (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
That's good, I can go with that... Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) Alright, a little overzealous, but I can live with that. We be cool then. Bruce (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) Absolutely correct. As you're fond of saying, this is a big tent, with room for all. However, and I think this is Dan's point, between hard-core builders and hard-core collectors, there is a significant paradigm shift. To me (and I suspect Dan (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) I'll do as I please. If you want an explanation, here it is: Anyone with enough money can collect LEGOs. There's no talent or creativity involved. There's no artistry, skill or vision either. Collection is consumption. Consumption doesn't earn (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
Thanks Bruce, it's better to understand each other....right on. Eric (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) As you should. I asked in order to try to understand, not challenge, your view. <snip elaboration> Thanks. Helpful. (...) I did say it, but not just to you, rather to all who read here. I'll say it again... Welcome all who come, whatever their (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) I'm glad my "elaboration" was helpful, and I hope I am clear now. <snipped discussion> (...) Sounds good to me, but why do you feel it is necessary to repeat yourself? Are you sure you are not addressing me? Have I mocked someone or done (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) You said "whatever", suggesting that you didn't agree. I restated it in hopes that you would clarify if you do or don't agree that inclusiveness is good. (...) Not that you disagree with what? (...) Great, (aside from the loaded words) but I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) I said "whatever" because I sensed you had more to say on the matter, which you obviously do. Did I not say "everyone has their thing" and for collectors "to collect away and enjoy their collection"? How much more inclusive would you like me (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
TYPO IN MY PREVIOUS POST, PLEASE CORRECT: (...) I meant "I did NOT call LEGO collectors...etc" I mistakenly left out the NOT in that sentence. Let it be clear that I did NOT call LEGO collectors materialistic, greedy or immoral. Dan (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) Thanks for that clarification. Rephrasing it, what I see you saying is that you're never wrong about anything, or at least never willing to admit it, and that you never misstate anything, or at least never see any need to ever correct anything (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We may all be Lego collectors, but Lego isn't a Beanie-Baby style collectable
|
|
(...) 100% pure bullsh*t my friend, but you will think as you wish. By rephrasing it, you changed the meaning for your selfish purposes, not for the greater need of understanding. If you were intent on understanding, you wouldn't throw in the little (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
