 | | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
|
Jake, I think it is disappointing and a bit sad that Lego would reply to letters from children in such a manner. In your post you mentioned this - (...) ask (...) You are correct - children are extremely intelligent. (I'm often stunned at what my (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes: <snip> I can agree with all of what you said and still feel that giving blow off answers was wrong. Write in a style that's accessible to children and a style that's funny, and appropriate to their age (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
|
Personally, I think that these jokes are a bit rude. Disclosure of information has never been a problem with the lego company, so why the sudden confidentiality? I can only form an opinion based on the two I saw in the post. In Australia, we only (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
|
(...) I wouldn't go as far as describing it appalling. I would find some of the responses in bad taste. I find them really dumb, and not really fun (or funny for that matter). I have seen some corny, dumb jokes, especially in kid's publications, and (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
|
(...) Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong. (...) I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We do a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not mistaken) and fun stuff like the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
