 | | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Isn't pondering the unaswerables pretty much what philosphy is generally about? You seemed to be interested in writing a lot in response to a question you didn't seem to deem worthy of answering. You seem to want to disagree with this post on (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Okay, it looks like you must have had a nice amount of time on your hands in order to come up with such a question - time I would normally spend building. (...) Step back and look at the arrangement of themes. For some reason, the community (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
"Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet news:HD34nv.uo8@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) I don't agree with you there! At least if by 'the medium' you only mean real, physical bricks. I haven't got much opportunity to build with real Lego, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) I don't disagree, but being a member of 'The friendliest place on the internet', I like the idea that people 'into Lego' are automatically included just because they are intrinsically valued as people to begin with. Hmm...here's a (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) My personal feeling is that the "LEGO community" doesn't really exist. That is to say there isn't a singular entity that can qualify to classify the group that might make up this definition. But rather, in my mind what you might really be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Certainly anyone who does is welcome, but perhaps being a part of the community, or one of many 'LEGO communities' is a matter of individuals actively identifying with such groups...? -Tim (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes: SNIP (...) HUGE SNIP (...) basically, any one that plays or works with ANY Lego building product. Jeff (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Great topic, Tim! Hmm... Well time for Hendo to babble again... :) In my analysis, the term "Lego Community" is a group of humanity that reaches far beyond any of the limitations you have suggested. The entire Lego Community includes TLC (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Thanks, Felix. (...) I haven't had time to formulate thoughts in reply to the other posts, but they're floating around in my head somewhere. You bring up a very good point, I think. Some individuals identify only with some components of "the (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Hi Tim, These kind of conversations are what help us develop as a community. I applaude you for bringing it up. Its nice to see us going a step beyond merely coming together to share likes and dislikes. By stimulating this type of (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
