 | | 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)
|
