 | | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) LOL - oh what a dork I am! I just tried raising that question in a reply earlier in your post here, without realizing you raised it yourself a few lines down. Glad I didn't post it and make a fool out of myself :^) [1] Anyways... I've seen (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) Hey Ken - Thanks for posting this. I happened across your post first, then Matt's. I was very close to posting a reply I had written to his post, but didn't want to taint the thread with something negative. I think the ideas put forth in this (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
|
(...) I have pondered this sort of topic a bit. I have intentionally only read one post here so as not to color my thoughts up front. Only a couple of small points frist on the LEGO 'community.' It's hard to say 'what' that is. I generally consider (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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, (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (23 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.people, lugnet.fun.community)
|
