Pamela Green
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Michael Mierzwa writes:
>But Joe is like I said in another post, a hypothetical or imaginary
>creation. Joe allows the issues to be examined without any personal
>attachments.
For somebody "without personal attachments," "Joe" seems to have a
definite agenda.
Why is "Joe" always wandering into the houses of folks who collect
prototypes and passing judgment? (That is, when "Joe" isn't snooping
around some girl's apartment to find cigarettes.)
Why doesn't "Joe" ever wander into POTF2 collectors homes?
> For example, in statistics examples people always count
>widgets, urns, marbles, and gum drops. Why? Well, they are small
>countible things, but also simple enough to allow the statistic to
>dominate the examples, and not the ... well example. :)
You can lie with statistics, if you count something that's inappropriate
to the question you want to ask.
Here is the question we should be asking: Why should people who collect
rare stuff continually have to defend themselves on this newsgroup?
--Pam
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
John Wooten wrote:
> I sure don't think anyone's
> inferior based on *anything* they collect and this should be painfully clear
> by now. Except maybe Barbie I guess :^)
I think this topic is way past Tomart, but I'll go ahead a list inferior
collections from my point of view.
Come on, there are some things that are obviously inferior. ;)
1. Barbies ... yes Barbie collections stink! ;)
2. Chevy Cars ... Ford is the only ONE!
3. Coins ... wait I collect coins, stracth that.
4. Barbies ... oopps, already #1 ... OK, the stink twice!
5. Scratch-n-Sniff Stickers ... they are so old.
6. Any SW collection without loads of aliens!
7. Shoes, remember EM from the Phillipines, that was out of control! :)
8. Spice Girls stuff ... why bother Hanson will be around longer.
9. Spoons ... they bug me.
10.Any thing Wrestling!
OK, earilier I made comments about people making assumptions about
people based solely on what they collect. Given no other information,
if I found out somebody collected the above here is what I might
assume. ;)
1. likes pink waaaaay too much. Bubble/air head.
2. obviously likes boxes and orange blocks, ignorant, but respectible.
3. idiot ... wait I'm one, I mean major cool cat.
4. pink ... ack ... pink is awful! Bubble/air head.
5. weirdo or 80s flashback ... maybe a drug addict.
6. no aliens = prevert. Just kidding, but definiately judgemental!
7. way to rich, and way to vain ... shoes, get a life!
8. teenie booper ... please don't breed, please don't breed
9. neat freak, spoons are for neat freaks.
10.guible, scam bait, naive, drunk, etc.
OK, I hope this illustrates two points:
1) the idea that collections are good and bad is totally personal, if
not 100% silly.
2) that given no other information, people can make some wild
assumptions.
Michael Mierzwa
in case you didn't catch on, this is a joke ... no grumps allowed to
respond!
Chris Fawcett
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Pamela Green wrote:
> Here is the question we should be asking: Why should people who collect
> rare stuff continually have to defend themselves on this newsgroup?
Yes good question. You never see loose figure collectors arguing in a
thread like this. You never see ship collectors, trading card
collectors, comic book collectors. Yet, it seems several times a year
something like this comes up aimed at the "high-end" collectors. Why is
that?
Mike, you wanted good questions, this is a great one.
Cj
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Pamela Green wrote:
> For somebody "without personal attachments," "Joe" seems to have a
> definite agenda.
Yes, he does ... that is the point of any hypothetical or imaginary
creation, to do things normal folk can't! Joe's mission is to allow
people to sit back and thing about things from a different prespective.
Personally, this doesn't seem like a hard thing to me, but people *here*
seem to be very affraid of Joe.
> Why is "Joe" always wandering into the houses of folks who collect
> prototypes and passing judgment? (That is, when "Joe" isn't snooping
> around some girl's apartment to find cigarettes.)
Easy. If I'm curious to see how other people might view say ... me, I
create Joe and ask him to sneak in while I'm away! And without warning,
sort of a fire drill.
People who aren't interested in opening their perspectives or minds to
other frames of reference don't need to invite Joe in. As he is
hypothetical, this means you don't have to think hypothetical. If you
view the world as "us vs. them" or in only in shades of grey, then Joe
is of little use. Joe *is* and explorer for curious minds.
> Why doesn't "Joe" ever wander into POTF2 collectors homes?
Just because Joe is current being talked about here, doesn't mean that
he doesn't. Joe can in fact walk into POTF2 collectors homes! :)
Why do people fear Joe so much?
> You can lie with statistics, if you count something that's inappropriate
> to the question you want to ask.
Yes, you can. But what use is the data then! I must ask, do you think
*I* have some sort of agenda? I got the impression that Gus was
wondering something along these lines as well in an earlier post ... and
that worried me.
If you would like to know what I'm driving at, here it is: I personally
think many collectors (including myself) tend to view things from window
all too often. By profession, I'm a hydrologist (water engineer). I
think all water plans should have input from water engineers, but I also
*know* that water engineers have a bias and way at looking at things
that will skewe their judgement. Public decisions on water policy also
need to contain input from many other professions and interests!!!
So too do these threads. So *many* people speak of getting tired of the
"having" to say the same things over and over again. My "agenda" if you
like is only to suggest that maybe people need to say *different*
things, and that the best way to know what *different* things to say is
to consider a new viewpoint ... explore your Joe/Jane.
Personally I'm sad that people are sooooo paranoid that they look past
these things. I don't see it as any one persons fault, but I totally
agree that after spending years on these groups and getting trolled is
enough to make most people paranoid. But I'm not trying to put any one
person or group on trial! I'm only begging that they consider new and
fresh ideas. :(
But you missed the point about statistic, I only said stats use generic
terms instead of specific terms in order to remove personal biases.
There is little doubt that if I changed my screen name to Martin
Woodhouse (whom I also think is a troll), that people would treat me
much differently than if my name was Anthony Daniels. But if I pick a
neutral term ... urn, marble, or joe it removes this possible bias.
Example, if you accuse me of being a goon, am I not going to more likely
to view you as a hostile person? In another thread I called Megatron by
his name, Eric. Another poster immediately *assumed* that I was
speaking of Eric S. But I wasn't ... not at all. Frankly, I don't see
any need to. But this poster obviously had Eric S. on his mind (which
if perfectly OK). But this is the perfect example of how people in this
group are been persecuted to the point that somebody like me can say
something totally unrelated and have everything questioned! :(
*hands in the air*
"I didn't do it! Honest! It's not my fault!" ;)
> Here is the question we should be asking: Why should people who collect
> rare stuff continually have to defend themselves on this newsgroup?
First let me ask my own question: Why should people who collect
*anything* have to continually defend themselves to the world????
Answer they shouldn't! But they will have to expect that people will
still judge them. Shoot my kid sister still nags me about having toys
on display! My counter arguement is, "Do you listen to me when I tell
you dyeing your hair is silly?" That almost always shuts her up. And
if it doesn't work, I pull an MTV Real World ... "What did the Real
World teach you ... isn't it wrong to judge people and tell them what do
to."
It works for her, but that is because she is reasonable. Different
people will require different answers. If I could treat all students
the same way, I would have, but that just wasn't the case when I was a
TA. Some were quick, some were slow, some liked humour, some hated it,
etc.
My point with Joe, which seems to escape some people and others totally
understand what he is for, is that instead of having to defend
themselves, collectors should consider flipping this very old debate on
its head.
Michael Mierzwa
Change, diversity, and exploration! :)
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> If I ever see Joe I swear I'm going to kill him.
LOL! :)
I hear he is a fat old white guy with a long white beard and wears silly
red pants and a funny red coat with white trim. He usually sneaks
around people's collections at night and more often in winter (Northern
Hemisphere).
:)
Michael Mierzwa
-methinks I'll be put on the naught list for sure now!
John Wooten
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>Pamela Green wrote:
>Yes good question. You never see loose figure collectors arguing in a
>thread like this. You never see ship collectors, trading card
>collectors, comic book collectors. Yet, it seems several times a year
hey! I collect all this goofy stuff! I'm only a rare item hoarder elitist
wannabe ;^)
John
John Wooten
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>to view you as a hostile person? In another thread I called Megatron by
>his name, Eric. Another poster immediately *assumed* that I was
>speaking of Eric S. But I wasn't ... not at all. Frankly, I don't see
>any need to. But this poster obviously had Eric S. on his mind (which
>if perfectly OK). But this is the perfect example of how people in this
Eric had posted not too far back in the same thread. I'd never really thought
about megatron's real name, so I assumed you were confusing the two. No freud
here.
John
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
John Wooten wrote:
> hey! I collect all this goofy stuff! I'm only a rare item hoarder elitist
> wannabe ;^)
Wow that makes another low-end collector! :)
John, I think it is time to put the high-end collector disguises back
on. ;)
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Chris Fawcett wrote:
> Yes good question. You never see loose figure collectors arguing in a
> thread like this.
Hello! Like look at me! "I'm over here!" *Waving hands*
I *am* a loose figure collector.
I have *2* vintage figures on card! *2* and the same character: Ackbar,
and his British cousin Ackbar.
> You never see ship collectors, trading card
> collectors, comic book collectors.
Name the ship ... please don't say Imperial Shuttle, Skiff, Micro Falcon
or Die Cast Tie Bomber and I have it already. Ship collector, CHECK.
Trading cards. CHECK (Actually I have a nice collection of these).
Comics, darn I really only have 13 or so tops. ;)
> Yet, it seems several times a year
> something like this comes up aimed at the "high-end" collectors. Why is
> that?
> Mike, you wanted good questions, this is a great one.
And is incredibly good. I think high end collectors are the most
visible. I imagine there are only about 10-15 people tops here who
actually remember (saying nothing about believing me) that my a bit time
low-end collector. You said no loose collectors argue in this thread
.... well we do! We just always get forgotten.
My question is why???? Why do people forget us low-end critters even
when we are RIGHT in everybody's faces?
I think it is because a majority of the people in these threads do in
fact bin people! They might assume that because I post so much that I
have an agenda ... er not really. Or they might assume that I don't
have an opinion, which is wrong, I'd wager that I'm as opinionated as
John and Kristen combined and then tripled. ;) Um if that number is
even possible.
Anyway, in another post I did point out how my own family questions my
loose collection! :( "Mike, why not hide your stuff in boxes?" "Mike,
why do you play with toys made for 4 year olds?" "Mike, why are you not
like us?"
Chris, just because people forget us low-enders, doesn't mean we don't
exist. :)
If I knew how to get people's attention and also to get them to not
write me off as a "wacko" or "goon" or "weirdo" at the same time, then I
really would do it.
So can you know answer your own question! I've tried to find that one
out!
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
John Wooten wrote:
> Eric had posted not too far back in the same thread. I'd never really thought
> about megatron's real name, so I assumed you were confusing the two. No freud
> here.
Whew! :) I noticed the other Eric did post earlier and moved on to
another can of worms ... something about "why you collect high end
stuff" ... that thread ended up skipped (been there, done that).
Michael Mierzwa
Mike B
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Stroke Stroke Stroke. I've never seen a little group of men stroke each
other's ego sooo much. Hilarious!
(You know who you are).
Mike B
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Wow John, you said bull****. Are you mad?
-It's gonna be alright...
John Wooten
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>John Wooten wrote:
>I think this topic is way past Tomart, but I'll go ahead a list inferior
>collections from my point of view.
ah, you make too much out of it...i was just trying to get a rise out of my
good pal Pam. :^P
John
stuntboy
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Hey Stuntboy: What the hell are you talking about? bashing? Using
> something against you and Gus?
hey, it's the first thing that came to mind when i retitled the article. i
was really just kidding around. :^)
> What? Damn, your post was long. A little defensive? A little fanatical
> perhaps?
i did mention in the post that it was "directed at no one in particular". i
meant that. i just used your post as a springboard to defend things i saw
mentioned in this thread and around here in general.
it was defensive, but i don't think it was fanatical.
> Wow. Are you trying to reason with yourself, because I don't care about
> 95% of what you said. Go back and look at the few posts ahead of mine,
well, that's fine. i'm really not trying to reason with anybody, but more to
give people some background so they aren't so negative towards people they
don't know or topics they are unfamiliar with. you don't care about 95% of
what i said, but you cared enough to wonder why people would like or collect
prototypes.
> This newsgroup is too damn tense.
sometimes it gets "tense". usually because some of the regulars always seem
too have to defend everything they do or say no matter how much they put into
promoting this hobby on the internet. work and effort that is quite easy to
quantify.
like i said earlier, i wasn't really directing that reply to you. it was more
of a general response to what has been said in the thread and in the past.
something that seems to need to be reiterated every once in awhile.
everyone i know around here had a great attitude about collecting and about
life and when they are the victim of harsh words they usually just laugh it
off. however, i find it disturbing that so many group veterans are
continually hounded for no good reason by people who are in and out of the
newsgroup and/or hobby in a short time.
nobody is "safe" around here, but you learn to live with it.
-chris
woods01
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> How is saying "anyone who collects potf2 can afford to collect vintage"
> being elitists? IMO, it's just trying to deispell some common
> misconceptions about vintage collecting. Ie: That it has to be
> expensive.
> Not trying to be arguementative here, I just wonder why you think
> this...
> Cj
I suppose you are right but one of the main arguments of vintage vs potf2
is the price and while some collectors spend enough to make a nice vintage
collection not all want to spend $20 on the dull ROTJ that compose the
"cheap". What I was getting at was that just because a collector can afford
to, it doesn't mean that he should collect vintage SW.
But as for elitists, there are enough posts of people hacking the new toys
or potf2 collectors that it sounds to me that a few people feel they are
better than the potf2 collectors. The truth is that potf2 has lead more people
into vintage collecting than anything else, the SE only created a frenzy of
buying and selling, and when you really really think about it both hobbies are
equally silly. I bet most of us have better toys than we did as a kid! and
that is what I find truly amazing and so damn funny.
-John
woods01
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Anyone ever think on this group that it is okay to collect POTF2?
Yeah! I don't have too much of it, maybe about a dozen items most of which are
Action Fleet. The reissuing veichles is the best part. $20 a-wing! Who can
beat that? I just hope the skiff and crawler get made next year and I wouldn't
mind being able to buy the new coins and slides seperatly. I think the line
is just as good as the orginal, in other words: mediocre, so I'd rather spend
the $$ on vintage because of the nostalgia and the fact its harder to collect.
Also it helps that by collecting vintage, Georgie isn't getting any more of
my money.
However, the line sucks in the way the new figs don't have joints, and how
they make a figure of every friggen guy in the god damned movies! Was there
really a huge demand to make figures of the wolfman or the SE jaba singers?
Here's to swimin with bow legged women or figures for that matter.
-John
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
MegatronForever wrote:
> > (although I'd love to see where the insult was)
> hey what was that up above and does your WEB TV comment referesh your
> memory
Well, it is sort of nettique to quote the parts of people's posts when
you respond to them. It helps to keep people on the same page at the
same time.
What John and others might not know about Web TV (I gathered this from
lurking on news.groups) is that Web TV doesn't allow people to quote!
The follow screen is blank and the TV doesn't have the Edit Copy Paste
functions that say Netscape or a Windows/Mac screen has. So Mike B
would have to paraphrase if he wanted to bother having a real
discussion.
IMHO this in no way justifies his trolls. The shame here is Netscape
doesn't have a killfilter, otherwise I'd use it. :(
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
John Wooten wrote:
> In article <353568EA.2...@ix.netcom.com>, mmier...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> OK, I apologize to Mike B then. Obviously I'm the clueless one about webtv.
> >IMHO this in no way justifies his trolls. The shame here is Netscape
> >doesn't have a killfilter, otherwise I'd use it. :(
> I would be nice if he added to the discussion instead of just trolling, but
> then, if I keep being stupid enough to fall for it, I guess I'm just as bad.
Yes. It would. He also could have told people why he didn't quote them
if he cared to as well, believe me, many webtv people are more than
happy to explain their situation ... hence I learned about it. Just
because somebody is on webtv, doesn't mean they have a golden ticket to
troll. ;)
They can also paraphrase the comments they reply to if they really want
to. The advantage is this leads to shorter and more direct posts.
Michael Mierzwa
John Wooten
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>Wow John, you said bull****. Are you mad?
>-It's gonna be alright...
Gee, I'm touched. Don't worry, I'm perfectly fine. Bull**** is just the
perfect adjective. of course, I'd know what you were talking about if you
webtv folks would ever figure out that you should quote the post you're
responding to.
John
John Wooten
April 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>insults, insults, insults
trolls, trolls, trolls, but aint it fun?
(although I'd love to see where the insult was)
John
John Wooten
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>> trolls, trolls, trolls, but aint it fun?
>Once again, avoid the truth
What "truth"? Oh yeah, your "opinion". You pontificate on and on about
respecting others opinions, but I don't see you posting to any of the very
relevant comments in today's other posts. Instead, you'd rather play straight
man to a troll, I guess.
>> (although I'd love to see where the insult was)
> hey what was that up above and does your WEB TV comment referesh your
>memory
how is it an insult to indicate that it sure would be nice if he could somehow
quote or at least give some clue as to what he's talking about. Ah well, he
was baiting me anyway. I shouldn't have given him the pleasure. Funny how he ,br>
escapes your criticism, isn't it?
John
John Wooten
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>What John and others might not know about Web TV (I gathered this from
>lurking on news.groups) is that Web TV doesn't allow people to quote!
>The follow screen is blank and the TV doesn't have the Edit Copy Paste
>functions that say Netscape or a Windows/Mac screen has. So Mike B
>would have to paraphrase if he wanted to bother having a real
>discussion.
OK, I apologize to Mike B then. Obviously I'm the clueless one about webtv.
>IMHO this in no way justifies his trolls. The shame here is Netscape
>doesn't have a killfilter, otherwise I'd use it. :(
I would be nice if he added to the discussion instead of just trolling, but
then, if I keep being stupid enough to fall for it, I guess I'm just as bad.
John
Click here for part 9 of this thread.
Back
to 1998 Main Menu