Subject:
|
Re: Oh no, what have I done!?!?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:03:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
436 times
|
| |
|
|
> I'm not convinced it's a silly conversation. Lego vs Legos is interesting • to
> me because it combines my hobby, linguistics and intellectual property in
> one neat bundle. The discussion isn't as important as appreciating Lego
> itself, but that doesn't make the discussion unimportant. I have to take
> some of the blame for the Godzillan thread, since as a linguistic argument • I
> foolishly compared LEGO/legos with God/gods, giving rise to a religious
> brawl, with bonus trolling. Now _that_ took the fun out of it.
>
> --DaveL
I agree wholeheartedly with you Dave. I understand that there are copyright
concerns for TLG, but in casual converasation with Lego and non-Lego people,
it's an issue that's never come up (and I don't intend to raise it for
previously stated reasons!). I didn't address these copyrtight concerns
because its already been discussed (or argued) to death on this ng before
(and who wants to go through that again!).
Dave S.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Oh no, what have I done!?!?
|
| (...) On the other hand, here in Australia I have never heard Lego, or Lego bricks or a Lego set, referred to as "Legos". That's because we still speak English :^) [j/k, j/k]. My pet theory is that it's because Aussies learn a large number of (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
