Subject:
|
Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:47:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
44 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > No reasons?..:-) What do you think that this "L" of Lugnet stands
> > for?..:-)
>
> Well, if there isn't support for a clones database that's fine. But I still
> think that the L stands for "legos" in the generic plastic brick meaning --
> at least for most people that see it. Most are not purists, especially from
> the outside. Even some of us on the inside of Lugnet don't care much about
> this difference. That's how it was on RTL, from what I saw of it.
>
> I know what the L stands for officially.
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 certain
<sickly sweet juggernaut> of a country that has quite possibly elected one
of the biggest <treacle>heads of all time to be its president.
I'm almost calm now.
Okay.
"Legos" (meaning any generic plastic brick) is all of the following (AFAIK
and IMHO):
1. A usage exclusive to the United States, and possibly Canada.
2. A usage that is wrong on the grounds of grammar, law and aesthetics.
Do you say "I like fasts reds cars"? or "I like to drink Cokes"? (this one
might be okay if you're a severe caffeine addict)
3. Only part of what Lugnet is about.
<Boring rant about what I think Lugnet is about snipped.>
Clones are cheap and have some different parts. Quality tends to be very
poor to almost acceptable. Lego is generally high quality (at least in terms
of production), much more diverse and something that many of us have a large
emotional investment in. I wonder how many clone fans would be truly
heart-broken if Ritvik went bust?
In short, anyone who genuinely thinks the L in Lugnet stands for "legos" is
a W.-voting <treacle>head.
Sorry Mr Marchetti. That's just the way I feel.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
