|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
