|
|
 | | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| (donning flame-retardant attire) When these young people walk out into the real world, they will find that not everyone is testosterone-driven, regardless of their gender. Gender and aggressive behavior do not line up evenly. I have known aggressive (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Horrible quote from the Scala web catalog
|
| (...) Nope. The message I'm being presented by LEGO is that they don't care enough to proof their text. 'faciest'? Steve (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.scala)
| | | | | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| TLC has produced some non-conflict sets, the one that comes to my mind is 6595 'Surf Shack'. I somewhat suspect that this set was sort of a prototype-Paradisa set, although without the pink. Train sets would also fall into this catagory. Ray (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| (...) Part of my frustration is that it's difficult to _find_ Lego system toys that are generally appealing to girls. Almost all of the sets are fire trucks, police stations, race cars, or space/castle/pirate sets, and as someone else mentioned, all (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Introducing LEGO Direct
|
| Eric Kingsley wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> I know I'll prolly get lit up good for this, but here goes. Generally speaking, I don't see LEGO as being a toy sought out by girls. Now before you ignite the torches, let me explain. First, take an (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
|
