|
|
 | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| (...) Heh, someone should start a webpage that chronicles all the bad names (and why they're bad). Just so we don't lose track. :) --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| (...) one of (...) Which reminds me: To the Dutch, the name 'Znap' actually sounds like 'is fake'. Pretty well chosen name for a toy which soley existed to beat Knex (and failed). Eric (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| (...) That's what I was referring to in my exclamation: "Are they serious? ...Zooters?!" and "I don't know if I even believe this..." I didn't want to come right out and say it. I'm no history expert. But I figured some people would know what I was (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| (...) Not a licensed theme that I know of. However, their PR department could use a bit of leg work (from a google search for "zooters", from some history site that I forgot to write down). Seeing as the zoot-suit gangsta rap fad just came and went, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| So, what does 'Zooters' mean? Is it a licensed theme, known in the US? Eric (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| (...) wow. It's true. (interesting to compare these two reports) (URL) trying a different Google search, I found this. I feel kinda dumb now. Info is a month old. But, well, it _is_ 4:30 a.m. here. My mind could be numb because I need sleep. -Suzzz (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | The Toy Book's report on LEGO 2001 (U.S.)
|
| I really don't know what's news here anymore, but after doing some LUGNET searches, I didn't see any sign of some unusual words in this report I have. This is from the toy retailer industry magazine, "The Toy Book," which reports on toy companies, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.year.2001, lugnet.duplo, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: new Duplo spotted
|
| Eric McCarthy wrote in message <3A67996B.751AE8D2@r...ng.com>... (...) I saw these sets at a local toy store yesterday, I really like the growing garden. It is missing building bricks. :( They also had the new racers set, it really does come with (...) (24 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.duplo)
| | | | | Re: US LSAHS Shop at Home Specials, Feb. 7 - Feb. 13, 2001
|
| OOPS!!!! Thanks for the sharp eyes, Heather!! I left the name in from the previous week, the set # and prices are right... The line should read: (...) Paul Sinasohn LUGNET #115 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.duplo)
| | | | | Re: US LSAHS Shop at Home Specials, Feb. 7 - Feb. 13, 2001
|
| (...) This is odd... <set:2968>, according to the LUGNET guide, is the Safari Value Box, while the Rescue Base is <set:2914>. From the price it seems the name above, not the number, is wrong, but could someone double-check? Cheers, Heather -- (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.duplo)
|
|
