 | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | | | (...) (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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | (canceled) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | (...) Okay. The decision in advance that "a usage is wrong" is subjective (and legitimately so) from the relativist viewpoint. And you're right, it will only appeal to people sharing those cultural norms of grammar and aesthetics (hence the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
