Subject:
|
Re: First MOC Post
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:50:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
699 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Michael Bosch wrote:
| |
But then, wouldn’t ‘standard’ be non-standard, and therefore, standard?
Hmmm...
|
Yeah, it works kinda like “post-modern” art (if you made it last week, how can
it come after the stuff being made today?), or the popular style of music
collectively known as “alternative” rock (what’s so alternative about it if
everyone listens to it?). But then again, couldn’t “standard” construction be
defined by what’s used in the official sets?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First MOC Post
|
| (...) Thanks! Quite unintentional, I assure you. But somewhat creepy, too, upon further reflection. (...) But then, wouldn't 'standard' be non-standard, and therefore, standard? Hmmm... Mike (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
