|
|
 | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) I don't really think so, no. Because to have a total competition vacuum assumes that you're talking about a company that makes boxes full of elements and hands them to kids in a round grey room with absolutely nothing else to do. I guess a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist standpoint or not. (...) I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) But you can't order them from S@H until 2004! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) You'd be surprised to know that since all our politicians are honest, respectable and genuine it's worth paying US$25 for <set:3409 a soccer field>. --DaveL (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) I am so _not_ going to get in a cultural relativism argument over grammar and aesthetics. I'm a liberal in principle and a conservative in practice (except for anything from the seventies). (...) Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
| (...) Thank you Matthew. And because I've had two hours sleep in about forty I'll just point out that 1. fast and red are in fact adjectives, hence the first example, and 2. Coke is a trademark and a proper noun (like LEGO) hence the second example. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Fair enough, but you must agree that because of that circular reasoning the argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it. (...) I understand and accept that, but many people identify LEGO as a singular noun in that usage, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
| (...) It's wrong, but not for that reason. It's wrong because it's an adjective, and adjectives don't really have plurals. But in popular usuage, it's a noun, and there's no reason for it to not have a regular plural. And people do say "I drank a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) (assuming it's an open question...) Could you ever have a total, _total_ competition vacuum? Because if there's a market, there's kids, and if there's kids there's no vacuum since they can always make up their own games. And if they couldn't (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) My take is that LEGO's trend toward Juniorization would continue with or without market competition, since we have evidence of its roots long before any serious competitor hit the market. LEGO can't blame (not that they do) their own reduced (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
