 | | Re: Seriously...
|
|
(...) Nothing to follow. Jon expressed an opinion, and a rather benign one at that. Is this grounds for banishment? And even if insulting is grounds for banishment, I personally have endured countless personal attacks at the hands of RM; far worse (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Seriously...
|
|
You must have skipped the post I saw... He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard. Perhaps you need to follow the thread again. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) I welcome innovations that add to a product. But nothing about this is innovative. It is just going to solidify the myth among American kids that LEGO is a baby toy. Perhaps this is just a ploy to spur us all into a buying frenzy to match our (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) Okaaaay.. that is your twist on it. (Cup is half empty?) Here's my twist: because LEGO/TLG/TLC is focussed on earning money, it now IS earning money again. And this in turn is a positive thing for the future of the company. And if the company (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why I support LEGO through thick and thin.
|
|
(...) There are a few problems with your theories. You yourself make the perfect case. You played with LEGO a generation ago and you came back to it because it was still the same. Lego has of course growen. Growth is good. Sometimes growth equals (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
