 | | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
Whoa. Did this thread stray or what? (Just look at the dots.) Tryin' to keep it light, -H.Man :) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
I do want to apologize for one thing. When I wrote that post with all the smileyes I was acting under the assumption that you would be comfortable with some friendly poking and jesting about the subject. Obviosly I was mistaken and you take this (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) I'm not as compartmentalized a dork here as some, but with every post I read in this thread I only restrain myself from saying "take it to ot.debate" for the same reason given to you by others and by Dave! (...) The whole thing does belong (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Heh. That used to mess me up, too. It means that you will tag your message to send Follow-Ups To another posting group. (...) In fairness to the readship, it's not yet a debate because you haven't yet moved to off-topic.debate. (...) It's a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
I'm too newb to know what FUT is so if someone wants to enlighten me I'll make any adjustments that I can. We already briefly had the discussion about the locations of these discussions and it was generally sugested that lugnet.people and (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
