| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Purple Dave purpledave@maskofdestiny.com wrote:
| |
Huh? “LEGO bricks” is the standard preferred term. And who does he
think he is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark
protection when he’s typing “Lego” instead of “LEGO”? Just because
someone says that “LEGO” can’t be pluralized into “LEGOS” doesn’t mean
that they’re saying that “LEGO” is the plural of “LEGO”.
|
I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
|
I’m not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come up again
and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting ‘news’ articles from blogs.
| |
As for the capitalization issue: that’s a very long-standing conflict
between marketing/sales/companies and journalists. See:
http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html
Which includes the classic summary: “You want all caps? Go buy an ad!”
As that article points out, and as you’ll see elsewhere, AP style (which
most newspapers follow) dictates that company names are printed in all
caps only if each letter is pronounced separately. El ee gee oh would be
LEGO; Lego is Lego.
|
Which is all well and good except for two things:
1) Many of us around here are not accredited journalists.
2) Many of us around here are respectful of the company and its wishes for
the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name spelled in caps then
so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name correctly, why shouldn’t I
give that same measure of consideration to a company that I feel has earned it?
Regards,
Allan
• Not ‘Alan’ or ‘Allen’ or ‘Al’, but Allan. Thanks!
Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is not a
.mediawatch worthy thread.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
> I'm not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come
> up again and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting 'news'
> articles from blogs.
It's not just any blog.
> 2) Many of us around here _are_ respectful of the company and its
> wishes for the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name
> spelled in caps then so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name
> correctly, why shouldn't I give that same measure of consideration to a
> company that I feel has earned it?
Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
> Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is
> not a mediawatch worthy thread.
Setting it back, because What-Ever.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > > I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
> > I'm not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come
> > up again and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting 'news'
> > articles from blogs.
>
> It's not just any blog.
Then I will sincerely ask.... what kind of blog is it?
> > 2) Many of us around here _are_ respectful of the company and its
> > wishes for the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name
> > spelled in caps then so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name
> > correctly, why shouldn't I give that same measure of consideration to a
> > company that I feel has earned it?
>
> Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
And then why not just use it the way the company has asked? I honestly don't
see why people put up such a fuss over this. When speaking with friends, or
just in your own head while thinking about this topic I think we can use
whatever terms we want. But in any type of civil conversation or written
communication I don't see it as a very big effort to just call them LEGO bricks,
LEGO products, LEGO sets, LEGO elements etc. And I'm now so used to typing the
company name in all caps that I find it difficult to type it any other way. :)
> > Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is
> > not a mediawatch worthy thread.
>
> Setting it back, because What-Ever.
And perhaps you are right on this one. I reread the charter for .mediawatch and
it seems pretty open as to where these references can appear. However, it does
worry me that we would put too much faith in a blog or a web journal or a
personal website of any kind on something that is already clearly defined
elsewhere and with good reason.
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > It's not just any blog.
> Then I will sincerely ask.... what kind of blog is it?
It's part of what remains of the former Brunching Shuttlecocks, which was
one of the funniest humor sites on the web before its recent demise.
Probably not coincidentally, today's Book of Ratings (another fragment of
said site) also refers to Lego. Although somewhat negatively. :)
<http://www.bookofratings.com/>
> > Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
> And then why not just use it the way the company has asked? I honestly
Because using it as an adjective rather than a noun is stilted and clumsy
-- like saying Kleenex tissue. I like Lego, but it's general principle
that for-profit companies don't get to control the English language.
In more-formal writing, sure, I'll call the product "Lego bricks" instead
of Lego or Legos. I'll use most trademarks that way, in fact. But I'll
stick to the correct/standard capitalization. Just about every company
asks for special treatment of their trademarks, and I don't see why I
shouldn't be consistent. What's next: asking for the trademark to always
be [bold]? Or <BLINK>blinking</BLINKING>? Or written five lines tall in
fancy letters? Or always followed by the phrase "is the best thing ever
buy buy buy!!!"?
You might say, those examples are ridiculous, and all-caps is such a
trivial little thing. And you'd be partly right, but it's all degrees of
the same thing. I just draw the line sooner than you might.
I'll gladly spell your name "Allan" (just as I prefer that people call me
'Matthew'), but if you ask that I always write aLlAn I'll probably
politely decline. :)
> And perhaps you are right on this one. I reread the charter for
> .mediawatch and it seems pretty open as to where these references can
> appear. However, it does worry me that we would put too much faith in a
> blog or a web journal or a personal website of any kind on something
> that is already clearly defined elsewhere and with good reason.
I wasn't really putting any 'faith' in it; I just thought it was funny to
see the little rant there. I happen to agree, but that's another story. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
|
