 | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Yes. Joke. No smiley because I try not to laugh at my own jokes, as that's usually considered poor form. (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I trust this is what is called a Joke? Because I don't think this should be necessary at all. Sarah sarah@eskimo.com (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
(...) I do like option "c." Even better if it was timer set......... ___...___ richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam dot Web Sight: (URL) Instant Messenger: RJD88888 ICQ 13177071 ___...___ (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) So you're not saying that they couldn't have nailed us, you're just saying that they could have only nailed missile silos. I guess you'd consider any number of nuclear explosions over missile silos and the damage that would cause to the (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Matt Marshall wrote in message ... (...) Missile (...) caused (...) 1)The Russians first wave was targeted at the Silos not at the prez because he would be long gone and they knew that 2)They had to fly a really long way, except from the Siberian (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
They could have and if they got lucky it might have detonated over a Missile Silo(1). But there is now way that had we gone to war they would have caused us a whole lot of damage. There technology wasn't up to it. Not to mention they couldn't get (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) So are you the person that suggests the the USSR (rememeber that's what it was during the Cold War, or the CCCP if you prefer) couldn't have succeeded in launching an ICBM at us? (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) But you probably should start your subject with "WARNING EVIL CLONES!!!" every time. (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) probably lugnet.build is the most appropriate usually -- depending on if you're talking about properties of the bricks or about the companies themselves, you might want lugnet.build or lugnet.general... --Todd (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Perhaps a Princess.... wrote in message <3621e044.4881529@20...63.236>... (...) I'm telling you, I will convince everyone that the Russians could never have hurt us at any time during the Cold War even had they tried too.;-> There is no such thing (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I would say that lego-clone discussions are just as appropriate in the lego.* groups as they are on rec.toys.lego Certainly, I enjoy reading about them. Even if I am not sure I'd buy any. .debate is more for topics that lead to two highly (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Todd, if we want to discuss something other than Lego - the brand - do we have to do it in this section? I hope not. David Zorn (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net wrote in message ... (...) Hehe, well it should be intresting to see what the US does, I'm willing to bet a minifig that they don't do anything, and that Bin Luadens nuke never appears, Probably he'll try to modify and (...) (26 years ago, 6-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
Matt Marshall wrote in message ... (...) a (...) I don't know about **any** detonation...... If they are so decrepit as previously suggested, they may well detonate whilst still in their bunkers! (...) The Ukrainians have apparently sold some (...) (26 years ago, 6-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
Ron Kittle wrote in message <3611B90F.699DDCA5@s...rr.com>... (...) I'm telling you the Russkies(1) wouldn't have been able to launch enough missiles to garuntee a detonation in any US city, much less a detonation at all. And now I don't have to (...) (26 years ago, 6-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
(...) Must be taking a while to reach my server. Last post was about 3 or 4 days ago....... ___...___ nospam.richard.dee@virgin.net remove nospam dot Web Sight: (URL) Instant Messenger: RJD88888 ICQ 13177071 ___...___ (26 years ago, 1-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
Richard wrote in message ... (...) It's still going over there. They're talking about memory requirements in computers or something. It's slowly dying. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 1-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
(...) It had originated when a newbie had posted binary files. (I do not use newbie in a derogatory sense, as I am technically still one myself!) There were the usual related flames, and then someone, as an aside comment about the flames mentioned (...) (26 years ago, 30-Sep-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
(...) Good going, Richard! I had to laugh when I saw that subject line. What topics were covered in the original thread? I remember some "young earth" discussions, as well as a diversion into ICBMs. Ron (26 years ago, 30-Sep-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Special Boxes
|
|
(...) This newsgroup, on this server, is the main reason I stopped posting off-topic on rtl and started pushing Todd "Are we done yet?" :) It really WAS quite off topic for RTL and I hate doing that. (So, do I win that $1000 prize yet, Matt Hanson?) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Sep-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
