 | | Re: All your typo are belong to us?
|
|
(...) When I was the editor of my college paper, I put in the quotation under the index key-- "Spelling slips and grammatical gaffs are purposely placed for the perfectionists to point out." I tried my derndest to get ridda all speeling misteaks, (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.fun, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: All your typo are belong to us?
|
|
(...) I have noticed this more and more in every branch of media: catalogues, magazines, novels, etc. I think it's due to the reliance on computer spell-checking instead of honest-to-goodness proof-reading. The biggest errors I've seen involve using (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.fun, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: All your typo are belong to us?
|
|
(...) LOL! Ha ha! (...) Or maybe they're using a bad-quality laptop like me - It's fairly hard to type on this hunk of I-can't-download-3-M...s-anymore! (That's pretty sad considering I have only a couple things installed: StarCraft, (a computer (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.fun, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | All your typo are belong to us?
|
|
While visiting lego.com, I sometimes see incorrect words mixed in, here and there. I think it's kinda cute. But yesterday, I noticed -three- typos in one product's description alone. Now I'm beginning to wonder how this happens. Is TLC using OCR to (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.fun, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear Lego, please do whatever business thingo you did that lead tothe 8466 4x4 off-roader
|
|
"Nathanael Kuipers" <kuipers_n@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HEBoHG.Ezu@lugnet.com... (...) have (...) I'll do. (...) I like the idea of instructions on CD :-) One idea did cross my mind for the 8466 and I think you'd be the guy to do it. (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego shop
|
|
Dug, just to support you, you're not the only one who wants this. Bert PS I would also love to work for them in such a shop, so I'm queueing the line, who follows? "Duq" <lugnetpost@skipthis...tmfweb.nl> wrote in message (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY?!?!?!
|
|
"Steven lane" <steveroblane@aol.com> wrote in message news:HEGtG4.11G9@lugnet.com... (...) :) (...) of (...) in a (...) I do admit I felt slightly ripped off for paying £15 (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY?!?!?!
|
|
(...) Thats because they we're pants! (that's underwear to any non-brits :-) Steve (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: WHY?!?!?!
|
|
(...) 6335, (...) Lego sets have an average life of 2 years, then they make way for new sets/new lines. If the line does well, more sets follow. The sheer amount of UFO and Insectoids sets I saw getting reduced down to virtually nothing in a vain (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | WHY?!?!?!
|
|
Dear Lego, Why did you ever discontue some really great loved-by-children (like me :) pieces and sets? Like the 1994-1996 Town > Race/Rescue sets like 6337, 6335, 6598, 6625, etc. And the 1997-1998 Space > UFO/Insectoids? And the pieces, (...) (22 years ago, 4-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
