General Discussion : 29050


General / 29050

20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Kyle D. Jackson

G'day folks, This seemed as good a place as any for this. Yesterday I assembled a MISB <set:6929 6929 Starfleet Voyager>. In it was a catalogue copyright 1981. On the back page was a message that said: "Dear Parents and Children The word LEGO(R) is (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Maggie Cambron

(...) Aha! Like Betty Crocker she never seems to age, does she? Maybe they're cousins.... Maggie C. (23 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Frank Filz

(...) Well, the statement glosses over, but does touch on that they are also trying to encourage people to acknowledge LEGO as the brand and not as the item so that people don't talk about the neat aircraft carrier made of legos they bought in the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —David Zorn

(...) Yeah, this is important for them to protect their trademark. If "Legos" becomes synonymous with plastic building blocks according to a judge somewhere, then people would be able to buy Megablok legos, etc. I have a bad habit of offending them (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Karl Barger

(...) Having pretty much grown up in Texas, I can relate to David's comments. I don't think I've ever asked for a facial tissue, it's always been a Kleenex regardless of the actual brand. It very well may be a regioinal faux pas. Build on! Karl (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) It's the same story in much of Canada. I suppose it could be called "brand dilution" but it's somewhat inevitable if you're the most recognized brand. And it could be a good thing, I think. LEGO claims to be gunning for that title now... (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Dave Low

(...) Lego/Legos creates brand dilution too, particularly in the usage "I bought these MegaBlok legos because they were cheaper, and fit with other legos." Think about God/gods. You talk about God, you're talking about the One Almighty. You talk (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Paul Gardosik

(...) Actually, gods exsisted long before your "God" who, when you think about it, stole the term. I personally don't think lego has anything to worry about. I mean, Megabloks? I wouldn't be all that scared if was them. (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Dave Low

(...) Does God have a name for God? follow up in off-topic.debate if you dare... My example (perhaps a bad one) aimed to show how a proper noun in the singular describes something quite differently from a common noun in the plural, or used (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Ross Crawford

(...) Who knows?? But God (if it exists) probably has another "entity" that it looks up to, and chances are it's not called "God". Of course, this assumes that "looks" and "up" actually have some kind of meaning in God's environment... ROSCO (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) I gather that in most modern monotheistic type religions, it all ends up at God, and that is that. No infinite regressions - God is IT, the be all and end all, the omnipotent, the Grand Overseer, He Who Knows all, etc. etc. Often the existence (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Steve Bliss

(...) Whoa. I thought Ginger was IT. Well, that explains all the hype of the last few months. Steve (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) I had forgotten entirely about IT - the only thing I know about this is what I read on the How Stuff Works web site. It reminds me of the hype surrounding a couple of vapourware computer games on the old ZX Spectrum back in the mid eighties (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Beware the JubJub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch... Though in this case, like the Snark, the Bandersnatch turned out to be a Boojum. There's a Carrollian logic buried in there somewhere. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Ross Crawford

(...) looks (...) God, (...) But thats *human* religions!! What if God has It's own religion? What does It call Its Grand Overseer?? ROSCO (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) If I knew the Latin for "who guards the guards?", I could sound really pretentious here, but unfortunately I don't, therefore I shall have to sound pretentious without the benefit of a dead language. However, the point is already made; God (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) If I knew Latin I would sure have a lot of time on my hands... (...) So do you know this for a fact because you are a God, or are you in direct contact with some higher source of power? (...) Then why presume to make assumptions about what it (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) Of course I am. The little green men communicate with me via my fillings and tell me so. They send me detailed plans for my Technic models. (...) Because this is what people who do believe and study those religions have told me - I am (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) You too! And here I though I was alone in the world. : ) (...) And why did you presume that they were correct beyond a shadow of a doubt in their thinking? I once read a study by numerous "experts" who said that it takes your stomach ten (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) Snipping out your previous texts no doubt helps you to try and pass that off. If I was actually inclined to attack you I suppose I might delve into that further, but I won't. (...) Oh so we can only debate about one thing at a time? Hmmm, it (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) So you'd like to think pal, but you'd be wrong :-) The reason I snip a great deal of previous text from these messages is that they become incredibly tiresome to wade through (more so than usual), with one ending up reading one new line per (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh, I hate to point out your hypocristy...but on the one hand you say it's easy to go back through the previous messages in the thread, and yet you add spaces to the subject line which as you know breaks the thread apart. Not only that but (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...)) —Dave Low

In just a few days in lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens: (...) Makes unwarranted assumptions about other posters' experience. (...) Is a smart-aleck about it. Also: Ignores substantive point on how annoying tit-for-tat arguments are. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...)) —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh, excuse your stupidity, but after doing it just once, one should be able to tell it breaks the thread apart...unless they're just blind or stupid, and I sure as heck wouldn't ever call Jennifer stupid. I mean if you're having such a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) Well, I'm not interested in getting into your other debate, but I disagree with your opinion on this point. I think that is *exactly* the *difference* between courtesy & respect - one is given freely, the other is earned. ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Agreed. Being at least somewhat courteous is an implicit requirement in the ToS here. Even to darn fools that you do not respect. ++Lar (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff) —Robert Bevens

(...) Hmmm....I should probably clarify, my bad. I believe there is a certain amount of courtesy which should be practiced and given out for free, such as holding doors open for the person behind you, not parking directly in front of a guy whose (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Ross Crawford

(...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) Hmmmm. Robert, you're really starting to sound like someone else who came around here temporarily a while back - what was his name? Matthew Boulton? I'd almost forgotten..... ROSCO (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Dave Schuler

(...) At this point a general warning should be given that in the near future Robert will likely announce that he has been playing a game with us to see how we'd react. I, for one, feel greatly privileged to have been a part of this bold and (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Jason J. Railton

(...) Hmmm again. So, if he's actually _trying_ to come across as a complete failure, and in that, he's a resounding success, which is he? Jason (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Robert Bevens

(...) No matter what the result is, there will always be someone eager to: Misinterpret it. Fake it. Believe it happened according to his own pet theory. Robert (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Robert Bevens

(...) No, not really. (...) You make it sound as if I've gone to some great length to hide my identity. A couple weeks ago I posted some links to pictures of some of my models, two new, and one old. So anyone following my work would obviously know (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Ross Crawford

(...) Just try & cool it Robert. It may sound like that to you, but yours is only one opinion. (...) No, some may have followed your links - that doesn't imply they know who you are. ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The play's the thing (was Re: Does God have a name for God have a name for God....) —Robert Bevens

(...) I'm tryin to keep things as cool as possible, if any serious debate starts over it I'm not going to get involved, there's no need. To me this group is just a fun place to yammer back and forth over stuff that probably isn't taken too (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) While I am flattered by your attribution of devious directed obfuscation, unfortunately I must confess to not being as clever as all that in this matter - I've not knowingly changed the subject line in any of the messages I've replied to. That (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) It's probably using the reference header to sort them instead of the subject. Just out of curiosity, what news reader are you using? Seems odd that it should randomly put spaces into the subject line. o_O (...) Gee, PKB lames, have ye reached (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) When was this mythical period, precisely? Do you have a citation to share with us? (...) See the earlier million-post debate for why your statement is flatly incorrect, or at least grossly inaccurate. (...) Or a Postmodernist, if you really (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Dare I actually post links to philosophy throughout the ages? Hmmm....perhaps some other time. Although if you'd like some insight you need go no farther than some of the lesser developed countries. Simply ask them if they think the world is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) I did not presume any such thing - the current debate concerns whether or not there is a God for God. Now, I could always have come along and said "Pah! Since God cannot be proven to exist, then this entire argument is pointless." However, It (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jason J. Railton

(...) I would. It's easier in the long run. :) (...) Stirring. We like stirring. (...) Personally, I think it shows a lack of imagination (not faith) to assume that everything has to be made by something or someone else. (...) Wow. If I could view (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jason J. Railton

Wow! Freaky. I submitted a follow-up to Jennifer's message (evidenced by the indented history), but Lugnet's taken it as a follow-up to Robert's message prior to that. Now I'm confused. Was that intervention divine? Or just fabulous? Can we move (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) Something like that happened to one of my posts. I followed up to one of Jennifer's posts but then it posted it as if the post I followed up with was the one Jennifer's replied to. A sure fire instance of Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc. Get the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jennifer Clark

(...) Indeed - for example, a colleaugue of mine from Egypt once had a taxi driver rant at him for the duration of his journey about how the Pyramids must have been made by aliens since they were such advanced structures for their time etc. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Steve Bliss

(...) Robert, have you spent any time looking at Jennifer's TECHNIC creations? She's obviously a god. Steve (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) I believe we should classify her as a godess then...unless I missed a meeting on political correctness...and chances are I have. : ) Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps we are it? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) Weren't the Overseer's something from that book...um...Childhood's End I believe. In which case they would have overly large bodies, small wings, and horns. All in all I guess they'd have devilishly good looks. ^*_*^ Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Scott Arthur

(...) I have at least one of those three thing. I'm not saying which. ;-) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Robert Bevens

(...) And here I thought those things on yer head were for the convenience of always having a place to hang up your coat. Boy do I feel silly! : ) Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS") —Jason J. Railton

(...) Funny, 'cos in our environment the word 'probably' has a meaning - that there is sufficient evidence for an event to be more likely to occur than to not occur. Exactly what are you basing the use of this word on in the above context? As for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) First of all, I don't know if I am supposed to take this discussion only to off-topic.debate or also have it cross-posted to general. If someone knows better, let me know. God existed first, before anything else. He created all things, (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Well of course God existed first, that truth is tattooed on our arms at birth. That is after all how we know absolutely for certain. (...) If that were true why don't we all look alike? (...) If God is really a God why is it that he can only (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

(...) I'm only going in on this one part here. It is my belief that man in God's image is not exactly literal, but of broader meaning Biblically. Image can mean form (arms, legs, head, torso) or function. My opinion of God is that He (not gender, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh yeah, sure, that works too, we can allow that. (...) So then it's true the handicapped (those missing various extremities anyway) go to hell. And here I thought South Park was just being humorous. (...) Does this mean we have to start (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) More specifically, I have understood it to mean that man has the capacity for Grace, and in this way we are created in His image. (...) Well, if you thought South Park was humorous, then you have issues that won't be resolved in this forum. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother of all invention, not necessity. (...) I find South Park's ability to make certain people get upset over trivial things to be quite humorous indeed. (...) Oh gee, what was I (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) Fair enough, but if you're going to criticize a view, you would be well-advised to learn what that view is. (...) You're committing a basic falacy of reason, in that you are assuming that, since some of their views were incorrect, *all* were (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Fair enough, but if you're going to accuse me of criticizing a view without knowing what that view is, you would be well-advised to make absolutely certain that I don't, otherwise you're just making another assumption (as if that comes as any (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —James Brown

(...) GUYS! To re-iterate (albiet more rudely) what at least a couple people have said: Get this crap out of lugnet.general! James (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh yeah, I think we got it, the threads are so big though that a couple offshoots got missed. Just chill d00d, I'm sure general isn't being completely overwhelmed in posts, it'll all clear up in a day or so. Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) Robert, in written language, sarcasm can be misinterpreted as personal angry attacks. That's why Dave said what he did about castigating Aaron. --Ryan (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Perhaps, but is the thickness of his skin really something I should have to worry about in my day to day life? Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Sanburn

Gentlemen, (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Sanburn

Folks, Is there some compelling reason that this is still in general, after repeated plea's? This is just plain rude, and I do not want to see it. I would go to debate to see it. Please stop. FUT->off.topic.debate Scott S. -- (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Hmmm...sorry about that, I snipped it earlier and assumed it stayed snipped. I'll try to keep an eye on it and snip it when I reply if I see it. Robert (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jude Beaudin

(...) Scott do it like this... Jude (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes: I apologize for inadvertantly posting the debate in the .general group. I thought the debate had already been moved to OT.debate. Sorry about that. Dave! (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) in God's image] (...) image." (...) the situation." We don't all look alike because God did not create us to look like Him, because He has no body; He is not a *physical* being, but a *spiritual* being. John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Well that's not what what's his name said, why is he wrong and why is it that you're right? Did he and I just miss some meeting or something? BTW this is your cue to say something about how the meeting was church and the head speaker was God, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, that isn't a bad idea! :-) (I mean, that there should be such a "Dummies" book) (...) If you are Catholic. (...) Divinely inspired by God. When quoting the Bible in term papers (biblical scenes being popular in many periods of art), (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Yeah but then you'd have to have one for everyone's unique interpretation and then it'd just get confusing and messy. (...) Hmmm....no I don't think I'm Catholic today...maybe tomorrow I will be though, we'll see. (...) LOL, now that's funny. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Read your comments previous to mine above. (...) Same again. If you feel you have to sneer at his website, don't bother with it. Just advice. Feel free to ignore it. (...) I think, therefore I am. Not applicable to all, I'm afraid. Or, as I (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) I did, I still don't see your point. I wasn't being sarcastic at that point you know... (...) But I like his colorful interpretation of the bible, it provided me with much humor this morning. (...) I love it when people think the ablity to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Liar, liar, pants on fire... (...) Wait, you just said you weren't being sarcastic at that point. At least keep your story straight. (...) Or so you think. (...) Okay, plausible but specious form of argumentation (or, more bluntly, a load of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Me?! Lie?! No, never. : ) (...) I wasn't, it was "insightfully" humorous. (...) Or so you think I think. (...) Having a load of bull is sure a lot better than being someone standing in it. (...) But you don't have to have a point to have a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

<snip> It is my considered opinion that he's stating that you are rude to people, deliberatly picking fights. You call it humor, but it is only funny if the other folk find it funny too. This may not be your fault, it's just one of those things (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) If being unafraid of speaking my mind and being really open is your idea of rude, yeah, I guess I am. (...) Oh now I am certainly not doing that. If you're going to start hurling accusations just because yer ego got a little bruised I sure (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

Robert: (...) In this Robert is referring to me. (...) No, I'm not. I said in my post just before you said this that I ALSO AM A SINNER. I AM INHERENTLY EVIL. Only God is perfect and sinless. --Ryan (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) On a some what interesting side note, I'd just like to know, who exactly asked Jesus to die for our sins? I mean hypothetically speaking let's say your religion is correct, Jesus died for our sins, etc, etc. I personally, feel that's wrong. I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) Well, no one asked Jesus to die for us. As you said, Robert, we each deserve to die for our own sins. God could have let us all die and not sent His Son. But God is a *loving* God, and he wanted us to be able to live with Him forever in (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Just a nit to pick: wouldn't being a sinner imply that you have some capacity for good? IOW, unless EVERY act and thought you commit is a sin, then you have some amount of good, right? How could something inherently evil have good in it? (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) If we're splitting hairs, couldn't something inherently (ie: predisposed to) evil still make the moral choice not to commit evil? Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hmmm. Good point. Which raises the question: is a thing evil by nature or by action? If someone were evil by actions, then I could see the possibility of good. If someone were evil by nature, then that person has a heckuva lot of work to do to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Another thing here is competency. I mean take Hitler for example, was he evil? Maybe, maybe not. I would call Hitler evil he mercilessly had 6 million Jewish people slaughtered not because he actually thought they were the bane of the arian (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Filz

(...) Oh goody. This debate is over. Next debate please... (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) make the moral choice not to commit evil? (...) us going to successfully fight our nature and become good?...what would be the point of creating a people who are inherently evil?" Here's what I believe, in light of the Bible. God did not (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) That's...interesting. If I were busted for aggrivated attempted shoplifting and reckless driving, would my children be responsible for my actions? Would my great-great-grandchildren, then, have the task for paying my debt to society? Or is (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) When Adam sinned, He incurred the punishment for sin: "in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam did not drop dead then, but the biological tendency to die started working and nine hundred (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for Hebrews and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) Daniel: In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the conquest of the Americas? You know the answer. (...) You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity came down like an iron fist on the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) That is a good point; in terms of colonization, the Spanish had a more overtly religious tone to the economic exploitation. An interesting irony is that while the Spanish often used divine right as a justification, they also, over the course (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Dave Low

(...) Is this the black armband view of history or what! I think it's telling that the present govenrment refuses to apologise for a policy that was so explicitly racist. Apparently Aboriginal settlements were the inspiration for South African (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.au)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: (big clipping) (...) Would you mind telling me why you consider Portugal was "the worst of the bunch"?? In fact, it DID start slave trade in the Atlantic; but it also began ANY sort of trade routes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —David Eaton

(...) Were I in the debate, that'd be exactly my point :) 'Course then we'd be on to defining morality which is my little pet topic, so I'd better steer clear :) (...) By my book, not *necessarily*, though I would argue that it probably was indeed (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

Regarding this subject of cruelty of so-called Christians to the indians, here's an interesting article about the Pilgrims in America. (URL) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Frank Filz

(...) Plymouth MA, which is the church congregation directly descending from the Pilgrim's settlement, is now a Unitarian Universalist congregation. This also reminds me of an interesting story I read in the Travel section of the Raleigh (NC) News (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

The question of whether man is inherently good or evil is a loaded question becuase the concept of good and evil is purely subjective. For instance, one culture may view cannibalism as evil, but for the cannibals it's just part of their cultural (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) But then the question could be, who is this "I" that can think? :) (not intended as any insult to you, Robert) --Ryan (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) -_o Well not the left "I", somebody poked it. He...he...he... : ) Robert (23 years ago, 1-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

(...) ILLUSTRATION. It could also mean lots of other things. (...) If people are refering to God or a godlike ability, they usually place it in caps, please don't get bent. (...) I did not use the term physical, did I. Brain capacity was intended to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) He, he, he, relax Aaron, I was just tryin to be funny. (...) Creativity is a godlike ability? Wow, so like I'm already one step to godliness, woo hoo! (...) You didn't need to. You said brain capacity, as in the capacity of the brain, therefor (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

Oops! Now I'm an ass!! Higher powers that be, forgive me for posting in .general! I'll be moving along now. Bye. AFW (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

I have replied to some of Robert's questions. The message can be found in off-topic.debate, as per some requests. --Ryan (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Edward Sanburn

To All, While this maybe a fascinating debate, please keep it out of lugnet.general. I don't know why it is here in the first place. FUT->off.topic.debate Sincerely, Scott S. -- Personal Page: (URL) Index Page: (URL) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Generally speaking one shouldn't try to generalize a topic into a general category, and in general terms any four star general would generally know the general posting netiquite...or perhaps not. : ) (...) Oh goody, goody, can we debate (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) Regardless, I see your site refers to "Virtual Legos," so you've apparently got a vested interest in both parts of this thread! 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "There is no god but Allah." Same God, by the way. Anyway, the question is whether God has a name for God, not whether we have a name for God. I suppose if God invented Aramaic or Arabic, that could be debated (scratching head and pondering (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Low

(...) As soon as the discussion loses its LEGO nature, go to off-topic I think. (...) Or at least the three main narrative threads in the Pentateuch have three different names for God, that reflect different understandings of God. Does rendering the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Buiting

(...) Sounds like an offtopic.debate thing to me... (...) Heh, interesting website because all 'truths' are quoted from a man-made book and blindy claims that the book tells the truth. I have never learned to take the texts written in the Bible this (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Um...surely you realize the futility in arguing this? I mean people NEED to believe what they believe, that is why they believe it. If we ever do encounter an alien race, I hope they're advanced enough to comprehend that simple concept, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Buiting

(...) I don't know if I understand you correctly: Do you mean that people need to force up their beliefs to other people otherwise their belief have no meaning? -Frank (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) That's okay, most people have trouble understanding me correctly, call it a curse if you will. (...) Why is someone forcing you to believe something? I find that hard to believe. : ) People believe what they need to believe, but at the root of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Filz

(...) And the world turns round again... (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Not to get off topic...oh wait we already are, never mind. Does the world actually turn around in a straight circle? I mean I know it sorta wobbles and what not and that's how we get the seasons, but is it how the earth is rotating that is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Straight Roundness (was Re: Does God have a name for God?) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd much rather ponder what a "straight circle" is. A gyroscope undergoes precession, in that its axis of rotation "wobbles," but the rotation itself, relative to that axis, is pretty fixed, I think. Dave! (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Straight Roundness (was Re: Does God have a name for God?) —Robert Bevens

(...) But when it wobbles would the axis change? I guess the easiest way to test the theory would be to draw a bright red line along the equator of a globe and give the ol girl a good spin and then see if the line stays the same or blurs whilst it's (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Straight Roundness (was Re: Does God have a name for God?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm. I guess it depends on how rigid the spinning object is, and what you're using as a standard of comparison. If there's no actual axis, but a "net" axis, the rotation might change. Intesting. Dave! (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The "wobble" is not the cause of the seasons, rather it is the angle of the rotational axis relative to the sun during the period the earth revolves about the sun. Bruce (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Yes, that we have established, the "wobble" causes the seasons, not the other way 'round (pardon the pun), otherwise we'd have like an instance of Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc....oooOOO....now that'd make for an interesting debate. He, he, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) (URL) ya go... Bruce (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeff Stembel

(...) Do you have any idea how hilarious this statement is? God created us in his image, so we created other gods in our image? Perhaps it was really the other way around. :) Anyway, be careful how far you go next time you're on a ship. You might (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Selçuk Göre

(...) call god as "god" but "allah" or "tanri" mostly..:-) Anyway, everybody has a right to chose his/her own spare time activity, in addition to building/playing with lego...:-) Selçuk (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Kevin Wilson

Selçuk Göre wrote in message <3AC5BF84.F784AF2A@s...ne.com>... <stuff about god> PLEASE trim lugnet.general from your newsgroups before replying! (sheesh, how many times?) Kevin ---...--- ------ Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: (URL) Lego parts (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Bryan Beckwith

I thought the point wasn't to stop other brands from being called LEGOS, but to keep LEGO bricks from simply being called LEGOS. This makes sense for a company that wishes to be known for more than building blocks. TLC never intended for their (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Dave Low

(...) But why would the LEGO company want to release anything other than plastic building bricks? It's what they're good at. They have nothing like the same expertise in other product lines, which would surely distract company and consumer focus (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Bryan Beckwith

LEGO hasn't always been known for building blocks. IIRC the Ultimate LEGO Book says one of TLC's most successful product launches was a plastic tractor. TLC also (originally) made lots of wooden toys. I can only imagine that when the message was (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Joel Jacobsen

(...) Well.. there is a LEGO line of china/collectible mugs... I run into it all the time when I do a search on eBay for LEGO. They're sprinkled in between all of the "real" hits for LEGO Building Bricks (there! I did it! <G>). I don't know if said (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —William R. Ward

(...) In general, trademarks are adjectives. If you use a trademark as a noun, you dilute the trademark. That's the general rule. That's why you always see something like "Chee-Toh(R) Brand Cheese Flavored Snack" rather than "Chee-Tohs". Same goes (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Matthew Miller

(...) This is a misunderstanding. They didn't even consider that people might interpret the message as saying that "LEGO" without an 'S' is the correct plural. Instead, they're saying "LEGO", like all trademarks, is not a noun, it's an adjective. (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Dave Schuler

(...) Just as a minor clarification, it's not entirely accurate to say that all trademarks are adjectives. Kia's "Sportage" serves both as a trademark and a noun, insofar as one doesn't say "I'm driving my Kia Sportage sport utility vehicle." It's (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —James Brown

(...) Yes, you could say either of those things, but they wouldn't be accurate (except insofar as 'Lego' is a noun in the vernacular(1)). There is no product called "LEGO". To collect LEGO, you would have to start buying companies. I don't think (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Matthew Miller

(...) I think that technically, they're misusing their own trademark there. (...) Well, this is actually _exactly_ what the Susan Williams message is trying to discourage. The Lego Company doesn't want you to use their trademark as a noun. You (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) Ahhh, now I get it. So they must be really un-impressed then that there's such a thing as LUGNET: "LEGO Users Group Network". This then implies that we are all users of the LEGO company, as there is no such thing as LEGO the product :] Should (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Selçuk Göre

(...) How typical..:-) People calls facial tissue as "Selpak" (a local brand) here. Selçuk (23 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.tx)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Chris Rudesill

Ahh... How did a discussion on little plastic blocks, turn into a discussion of religion? Geez... You people are worse than Trekkies. (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)

Re: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS" —Richard Marchetti

And you are responding to a thread that is about one years old, and doing so just to hurl criticism. What is that worse than? -- Richard (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)