Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:11:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1008 times
|
| |
|
|
It seems that I might be stepping into a personality conflict between these two
that pre-exists this discussion. Is that the case?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> > I thought Kevin was an admin of brickshelf, other than that I have no idea.
>
> Kevin is the Owner, Maintainer, and Administrator of Brickshelf.
Too many capitalized words will dilute your point...whatever it was.
> > So would I, I just found it ironic that he was talking trash about bionice
> > (as well as the images) but he was selling them, and assuming he was making
> > money from them.
>
> Why is that Ironic?
You go on to discuss how one makes money on fads. In order to do that, you
must generally support the fad as a good thing. I bet it's hard to sell pet
rocks when you're constantly trash talking them.
I know a guy who made a boatload of money on Pokemon cards. He had to smile
and nod to a bunch of 'dumb kids and their Pokey-moms' in order to score their
cash. If every time someone walked in, he'd been purning Pikachu in effigy, it
might have turned sales off.
The irony is that someone would seek to make money on a fad while
simultaneously not supporting that fad. The irony seems clear to me.
> > > He specifically said he has no problem with BIONICLE. It's those ugly and
> > > useless "avatars" that are the problem.
> >
> > No, he said he did have a problem with it and it was a passing fad.
>
> However, he does see Bionicle MOCs as valid content.
How gracious of him!
I think all those ugly MOCs should come down too. I just scan for eBay
galleries and I have to page through all those darned things that I can't buy.
So you people ought to get that self-congratulatory MOC garbage out of my way
so that I can find stuff to buy.
The reality is (and Kevin wrote about this when Brickshelf went up, IIRC) that
LEGO means many things to many people and as such, many different LEGO-related
images have a place on Brickshelf. What if one day five years from now, a
history of Bionicle avatars would make a really cool display?
> What he has a problem
> with is the Bionicle Avatar images that he feels are ugly and disruptive.
> These images are only used on forums to give posters a "self-portrait," rather
> than show off new and interesting building ideas or some such.
So?
You are explicitly stating that an image that acts as a chat avatar is less
valuable than an image that allows people to pat themselves on the back and
seek fellow egoboo. That is just your opinion, not some objective truth.
> > > How does expressing his opinion make him immature?
I think Tom is saying that it is the opinion that is immature, not the
expression. At least that's how I read it.
> > There is nothing wrong with expressing your opinion (like I am doing) but
> > there is something wrong with saying basically 'I do not like them, so they
> > should be banned' there IS something wrong and immature about that.
>
> Um, no. Asking for a ban IS expressing an opinion. If asking for a ban is
> immature, isn't asking for something to NOT be banned, which is what you're
> doing, just as immature?
The real deal is that you are each attempting to shape the world toward your
aesthetic. Tom's aesthetic prefers Brickshelf as advertised with the ability
to post all variety of LEGO-related imagery. The opposite aesthetic is one in
which only certain kindso of images -- the ones that particular people are
interested in -- are included in Brickshelf. Luckily (in my opinion) Kevin has
a broader aesthetic and probably includes the notion of 'inclusion over
exclusion' in _his_ aesthetic (which is the only one that matters).
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
