| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
| |
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next
you’ll be saying you voted for Bush. :)
|
Holy moley, them’s fightin’ words!
|
OK, that was a low blow, I apologize!
| |
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone describe himself as an enthusiast of
any hobby. Even if he did, he wouldn’t say “I’m an adult train enthusiast,”
because that sounds like he’s only into burlesque trains (which he may be,
but that’s beside the point...)
|
Heh, true in that case, but that’s because trains have become widely accepted as
an adult hobby. LEGO has not.
| |
If you’re really invested in the term, I’d suggest dropping “Adult” from the
acronym because it serves no purpose other than compartmentalization. If
you’re speaking to non-LEGO savvy listeners, chances are good that they’ll
recognize you as an adult, right?
|
Yes, and they’ll be thinking: “This guy plays with LEGOs? Does he still live
with his mother and collect stickers too?”
Or worse, if the context is such that it’s clear I’m a member of some sort of
group of LEGO hobbyists, they’ll be thinking: “This guy hangs out with kids that
are into LEGO? What is he, some sort of pedophile?” These images all come from
the commonly-held assumption that LEGO is a kids’ toy, and a group of LEGO
enthusiasts is therefore a group of kids -- apart from the speaker, who must
therefore be some sort of freak.
That’s why “adult” needs to be in the group term -- it makes it clear that the
group you’re a part of is not a bunch of kids, but fully grown men and women
like yourself (er, the speaker that is).
| |
What’s wrong with “Hobbyist” as a term? We all participate in LEGO as a
hobby, right?
|
Yes, and “hobbyist” certainly isn’t terrible. Adult LEGO Hobbyist doesn’t make
for much of an acronym, though. But I’d readily admit that it’s better than
AFOL.
| |
Do we all participate in LEGO as an enthusiasm? I know, it’s
not a 100% precise comparison, but I think it underscores my point that
“enthusiast,” though certainly part of the lexicon, just sounds tritely
artificial to me. Like referring to a “Bottle Shoppe” for no particular
reason.
|
Hmm, very interesting -- my experience with the language is quite different.
People describe themselves as enthusiasts of this or that all the time. Perhaps
it’s a regional thing? (FWIW, I grew up in the midwest and also lived for a
number of years in San Diego.)
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can play
with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric, but tell
somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like you’re
trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me. No, it’s
not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to change it as
I can. We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys off their pedestal
yet!
| |
And, judging from the huge
response that LEGO train shows seem to garner, society welcomes “us” as well
as it welcomes any subculture of hobbyists. Even the aforementioned SCA,
haven for ubergeeks of all stripes, attracts a huge crowd whenever it puts on
a public demonstration.
|
So do bearded ladies and snake charmers -- people love a spectacle. It hardly
indicates acceptance (of the sort I’m after, anyway).
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can
play with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric,
but tell somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like
you’re trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me.
No, it’s not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to
change it as I can. We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys
off their pedestal yet!
Best,
- Joe
|
It certainly is interesting following this thread..... I was a secret “AFOL/ALE”
from 1980-86. No internet, no knowledge of any other adult who even cared about
Lego. I was in the proverbial “Lego Closet” for all those years. Then 4 things
happened all within 6 months in 1986-87. Because I put a couple of my buildings
in a toy store window display, I suddenly got into a metro Detroit newspaper.
Then TLG sent someone over to interview me, and then I was on a Canadian TV news
type show (The Journal), which was doing a special on 25 years of Lego in Canada
(1987). And finally I got a call from Henry Wiencik, the author of The World Of
Lego Toys who interviewed me over the phone (page 30 of the book).
Well I was sorta scared, cuz I didn’t know what most of my friends and family
would think if they knew I was an AFOL!!! I had kept all of my Lego at my
buddy’s house, the friend who played with Lego with me when we were 7 years old.
Would I be a laughing stock at work? Would my friends think I was immature?
Would my family think I was in need of therapy? I felt like I was in my own
Woody Allen movie, but with Lego.
As it turned out, my angst turned to pleasure when they all thought it was way
cool. I even got a call from my 6th grade school teacher saying how proud she
was (I was about 30 years old at this time).
So I can really respect some people being sensitive to what others might think
of them. The word “ADULT” should stay in the acronym. At least for a few more
years....
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
| |
| |
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone describe himself as an enthusiast of
any hobby. Even if he did, he wouldn’t say “I’m an adult train enthusiast,”
because that sounds like he’s only into burlesque trains (which he may be,
but that’s beside the point...)
|
Heh, true in that case, but that’s because trains have become widely accepted
as an adult hobby. LEGO has not.
|
That’s a good point. If I were to hear a child described as “into trains,” I
would just assume that it meant Thomas, or maybe that he liked to watch his
parents’ train sets. More than being “accepted” as an adult hobby, I’d guess
that it’s a primarily adult hobby.
| |
if the context is such that it’s clear I’m a member of some sort of
group of LEGO hobbyists, they’ll be thinking: “This guy hangs out with kids
that are into LEGO? What is he, some sort of pedophile?” These images all
come from the commonly-held assumption that LEGO is a kids’ toy, and a group
of LEGO enthusiasts is therefore a group of kids -- apart from the speaker,
who must therefore be some sort of freak.
That’s why “adult” needs to be in the group term -- it makes it clear that
the group you’re a part of is not a bunch of kids, but fully grown men and
women like yourself (er, the speaker that is).
|
Not a bad argument. I have to admit that I’ve felt the discomfort of suspicious
stares while browsing the shelves in a particular store (in which any guy who
wasn’t clearly tethered to a responsible-seeming woman was, I felt, assumed to
be some kind of deviant). I guess that this same discomfort may arise in other
settings. too.
| |
Hmm, very interesting -- my experience with the language is quite different.
People describe themselves as enthusiasts of this or that all the time.
Perhaps it’s a regional thing? (FWIW, I grew up in the midwest and also
lived for a number of years in San Diego.)
|
I’ve lived in eastern, central, and western Pennsylvania for just about all of
my life, and I’ve never really come across “enthusiast” except to describe a
“gun enthusiast” or a “wine enthusiast,” and each term is laden with the
sterotypical political baggage that one can probably infer. Maybe that’s why
“enthusiast” as a self-descriptor leaves me cold?
| |
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can
play with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric,
but tell somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like
you’re trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me.
No, it’s not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to
change it as I can.
|
This part of your post (and Gerhard’s reply) opened my eyes a bit. Honestly, I
don’t care what the outside world thinks of my hobby, but it’s wrong of me to
think that other LEGO hobbyists/enthusiasts don’t or shouldn’t care. I’m
content to share my involvement in the hobby online (and in this forum in
particular), but for those with a greater desire for outreach, a wider stage may
be desirable.
Maybe part of my attitude stems from my fondness for clone brands, which sort of
isolates me even here on LUGNET. Not that I’m complaining--the
.off-topic.clone-brands group is fine with me, but I think it’s helped me to
develop an attitude of “if anyone else does or doesn’t like it, that’s fine.”
| |
We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys
off their pedestal yet!
|
And let’s start with John “I love 8-wide” Neal. He’s nothing but trouble.
| |
| |
And, judging from the huge
response that LEGO train shows seem to garner, society welcomes “us” as well
as it welcomes any subculture of hobbyists. Even the aforementioned SCA,
haven for ubergeeks of all stripes, attracts a huge crowd whenever it puts
on a public demonstration.
|
So do bearded ladies and snake charmers -- people love a spectacle. It
hardly indicates acceptance (of the sort I’m after, anyway).
|
Hee-hee! That wasn’t quite how I intended it. I meant that the “spectacle” of
a LEGO train show seems (IMO) sufficiently cool--even for the uninitiated--to
engage their interest without inviting derision. Sure, you’ll get detractors,
but there are jerks in every group (like that 8-wide-loving so-and-so... (just
kidding)), but that’s how it goes.
For comparison, I’ve built a bunch of shirts and/or coats of chain mail. When
they’re displayed, someone will invariably say “you need to get a life,” rather
than “you connected 70,000 links by hand? That’s cool.” Oh, well. I can let
it bother me, or I can dismiss the detractor as a knucklehead(1).
Dave!
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe that
“this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob. And I
note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from 800 years
in the future, either.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
For comparison, I’ve built a bunch of shirts and/or coats of chain mail.
When they’re displayed, someone will invariably say “you need to get a life,”
rather than “you connected 70,000 links by hand? That’s cool.” Oh, well. I
can let it bother me, or I can dismiss the detractor as a knucklehead(1).
Dave!
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe
that “this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob.
And I note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from
800 years in the future, either.
|
Dave, I got a good chuckle out of your knucklehead comments. Very funny!
Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe
that “this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob.
And I note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from
800 years in the future, either.
|
LOL, probably won’t help much against a good sharp broadsword either...
ROSCO
|
|
|
