|
|
 | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion. (...) I would argue (and again, this is entirely the way it works in my fat head)that you, as a LEGO user, would be as wrong (or right) to identify a single brick as "a Lego" as you would be if (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Are they the only thing keeping LEGO from complacency, or are they driving LEGO to juniorise the heck out of everything? If they didn't have to contend with competition, would they be dumbing down their sets, or would they be producing (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Parts one and three of this argument only hold true if you decide in advance that they're true. If, as a LEGO user, I identify a single brick as "a Lego," why is it grammatically incorrect to refer to several bricks as "Legos?" Forget about (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Where are the Dark Sharks
|
| Peter White wrote in message ... (...) HA!!! I wish some LUGNET members thought like that a bit more often, instead of whinging incessantly about the aesthetic limitations of a commercial product that has had a global corporation's worth of effort (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
| (...) Warning: exactly the kind of post that should go to .o-t.vent follows. So I've o-t.d'ed, but since this <treacley juggernaut> of a thread is still in .au, I'm not holding back. And I should say that I'm more than a bit <treacley>'d off with a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
