 | | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) Does this 'something interesting' have something to do with our favourite bearded Indiana guy and the little plastic brick? Dave K -setting the VCR, taping over 'Gilmore Girls'.... (18 years ago, 18-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) yes. Steve "bearded Indiana guy" Hassenplug (18 years ago, 19-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) But seriously, very cool. Derek (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) Was it? They spend the day at my house, and I have no idea what they came up with. Steve (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) Hopefully some managed to record it who can send you a copy. Unfortunately I didn't. When I see stories like this I'm always expecting them to have a high cringe factor. This one was actually pretty good. Overall it was a simplification of the (...) (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) That's good to hear. Thanks for the summary. They should be sending me a copy of it, and it may end up on TV somewhere in the US... Steve (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) I hope someone gets a copy--I'm all looking forward to it last night but col=mpletely lost track of time and wasn't anywhere near a telly until 8, and then bed by 10!! Grrr!!! I wanted to see my favourite bearded guy not named Jay!!!! Dave K (18 years ago, 20-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Here is the video four minutes video. It is in .WMV and weights 15MB. When moderated : (URL) folder : (URL) (18 years ago, 22-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Patrick Bégin wrote: <snip> (...) time he's on the telly!! Dave K (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) Dapper. I don't speak Canadian. Is that another word for fat? :) Thanks Steve (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) (URL) /ˈdæpər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dap-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. neat; trim; smart: He looked very dapper in his new suit. :) Dave K (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Discovery Channel CA
|
|
(...) Hahahaha! Almost blew a double double through my nose reading that one! -Rob A> (FYI a "double double" is a Canadian word meaning a coffee with two cream and two sugar in it) (Also FYI - I take my coffee like my life, dark and bitter. The (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) My 4 year old did that. It took me 10 minutes to clean him up. (...) Speaking of foreign languages, I would expect you to say "... two creamS and two sugarS..." Is what you said correct, or were you just lazy? Just curious, because us sloppy (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) I'm not lazy - just anal and particular :) I would say two cream or two sugar, implying two measures of cream or two measures of sugar. Cream and sugar can not be pluralized (in this context) as they are effectively unit-less. You could say (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) How about ones is it ok to have ones? Derek (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) Neither is correct. Both are equally incorrect. And it doesn't matter to anybody except those who think that 'Lego' is the only correct way to say it. (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) Sorry. I didn't mean to start a debate. I thought this was black & white. I didn't think there was a grey area. If both are incorrect, is there a 'correct'? Steve (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) The Lego company asks that we use 'Lego' as a modifier, as in 'Lego piece' or 'Lego set'. Instead of "look at my lego sculpture', 'or sculpture made of Legos' one should say 'look at my sculpture made of Lego parts'. This supposedly will keep (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) Hi, (...) You can check this document : (URL) precisely, I quote : If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) Thanks. (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) I'm all pro-TLC, but a company does not have the right to dictate how people speak. I type LEGO bricks and LEGO creations (for the most part), 'cause I appreciate the brick. That said, it's not grammatically wrong for my nephew to say (or (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) Yes, I have been told by the great Jake McKee that lego should be written in all caps. Derek Oops, that should be "LEGO" (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Speaking of Canadian
|
|
(...) I'm not all pro-TLC. (...) So I do (...) Sure. I totally agree, and my goal was just to inform ("modifier" is not the term originally used by TLC, the right term being "adjective") and not, in any way, to be pedantic or polemic. Regards, (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
