| |
The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
quote from the Scala web site:
<URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
"I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
sure Christian will like it"
Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
their minds.
Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
man in your life.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> quote from the Scala web site:
>
> <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
>
>
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
>
> Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
> and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> their minds.
>
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
That's ao awful!
I can't believe they really wrote that!
|
|
| |
That is bad, though since I'm taking Sociology this semester, I have to
look at how the culture of where this company exists is much different
than ours in the US. You notice how those products do sell better in
europe than the US, and you can be pretty sure it's because of the
marketing. Even though it's not a good strategy for the US. it must be
for the EU countries. Which is something Lego Marketing should probably
dig a little deeper into. Even though this world is so globally
interdependant, it's light years away being in the same cultures.
Tamy
"Stands back and watches this thread die"
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> quote from the Scala web site:
>
> <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
>
>
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
>
> Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
> and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> their minds.
>
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote, commenting on Lego's Scala marketing:
> > "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I
> > am sure Christian will like it"
> Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
> and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> their minds.
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
And about how to buy stuff. After all, isn't that what life's all about
- buying stuff? Gotta get them started young...
Sometimes I despair when even Lego does this!
Kevin
--
Email: kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com
Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/default.html
eBay Page: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
|
|
| |
I agree, Tamy. I've discussed this general topic with a few Danish women and
they hardly saw anything wrong with such statements as the one quoted.
There is an interesting book, which I'm sorry to say I've only read a fraction
of, titled: Americans in Denmark. It examines the cultural differences from the
point of view of American creatives who decided to call Denmark their home. It
particularly focuses on how the culture affected their creativity -- but the
American women did mention their female roles in Danish society as being a
"minus" when questioned.
-Suz
The book at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080931536X/baseplate/
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tamyra Teed writes:
> That is bad, though since I'm taking Sociology this semester, I have to
> look at how the culture of where this company exists is much different
> than ours in the US. You notice how those products do sell better in
> europe than the US, and you can be pretty sure it's because of the
> marketing. Even though it's not a good strategy for the US. it must be
> for the EU countries. Which is something Lego Marketing should probably
> dig a little deeper into. Even though this world is so globally
> interdependant, it's light years away being in the same cultures.
>
>
>
> Tamy
> "Stands back and watches this thread die"
>
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> >
> > The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> > LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> > restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> > quote from the Scala web site:
> >
> > <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
> >
> >
> > "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> > sure Christian will like it"
> >
> > Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
> > and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> > their minds.
> >
> > Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> > man in your life.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> > Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
>
> --
> Keep on Bricken'
> -Tamy
>
> Follow the bouncing boxes!
> http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
>
> http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
> http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
> Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
|
|
| |
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:14:13 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
_An_ important thing. And yes, pleasing your Significant Other, if it
is possible to do so without compromising your own morals, _is_ an
important thing. Regardless of your sex.
Jasper
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> wrote:
> I agree, Tamy. I've discussed this general topic with a few Danish women and
> they hardly saw anything wrong with such statements as the one quoted.
It brings up a thorny question of cultural relativism. Do we just shrug and
say hey, difference of culture, or is it okay to say, no, that's not right,
no matter what culture you're in there are some basic principles of human
equality which should be treated as universal standards?
I understand the value of respecting other cultures. And I further
understand the pragmatic need to at least understand and work within the
existing cultural framework. But it seems like corporate attitudes like the
one expressed here are bad no matter where you are.
I'm not saying this to be part of some sort of PC thought police -- I
certainly don't think it should be illegal for Lego to market things this
way. But I think that a company which seems so concerned with the positive
development of children should put more consideration into these issues.
Maybe this is getting off topic...
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> It brings up a thorny question of cultural relativism. Do we just shrug and
> say hey, difference of culture, or is it okay to say, no, that's not right,
> no matter what culture you're in there are some basic principles of human
> equality which should be treated as universal standards?
>
> I understand the value of respecting other cultures. And I further
> understand the pragmatic need to at least understand and work within the
> existing cultural framework. But it seems like corporate attitudes like the
> one expressed here are bad no matter where you are.
>
> I'm not saying this to be part of some sort of PC thought police -- I
> certainly don't think it should be illegal for Lego to market things this
> way. But I think that a company which seems so concerned with the positive
> development of children should put more consideration into these issues.
>
>
> Maybe this is getting off topic...
LEGO has two obligations - one, to themselves, to make money,
and the second (I'd like to imagine) to make toys that help children
grow.
You can't make people buy toys that they don't want. LEGO may have
accurately defined the girl's toy market, even if that market may
not be what we would ideally want it to be.
But here's what I would suggest. (I argued for this a long time
ago on r.t.l, and when I saw the Belville castle sets, I felt such
a sense of deja vu that I wondered if perhaps my ideas had
been read by LEGO ..... I know, vanity.)
I personally would prefer for LEGO to extend what they've done for
Belville, to the Castle line -- just not so pink. Girls like
castles and fairy tale stuff. Make pegasii, unicorns, witches,
princesses, queens, princes, kings, etc. Just make the sets gender
neutral - you don't need transparent pink castles. Fairy tale
things are the sort of sets that would appeal to both
boys and girls.
You could split the line into two categories, one more dedicated
to the romance of castle (with unicorns, princesses,
queens, etc) and one more dedicated to war, if you had to.
Oddly enough, that's what LEGO has already done with the 2000
castle sets, dividing the line into the warlike faction and the
romantic knights faction. But they could do so further without
cheeseballing it up so much that a little boy wouldn't want to
play with it.
The castle line is the single line that is most likely to appeal
to both genders, since everyone grows up hearing fairy tales.
I don't care if LEGO wants to compete with Barbie directly, but
I think they're missing the boat by not doing more to make the castle
sets appeal to both sexes. Castles aren't just about hypermasculine
angry scowling robbers armed with rubber-tipped missiles (sheesh).
--
jthompson@esker.com "float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
| |
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> _An_ important thing. And yes, pleasing your Significant Other, if it
> is possible to do so without compromising your own morals, _is_ an
> important thing. Regardless of your sex.
Of course. But is that the message you see being presented by Lego?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message
news:slrn855j5l.1bu.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu...
> The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> quote from the Scala web site:
>
> <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
>
>
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
Hmm, I wonder if the mispelled word was supposed to be "fanciest" or
"fascist"? ;)
> Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative • building
> and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> their minds.
>
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> > _An_ important thing. And yes, pleasing your Significant Other, if it
> > is possible to do so without compromising your own morals, _is_ an
> > important thing. Regardless of your sex.
>
> Of course. But is that the message you see being presented by Lego?
Nope. The message I'm being presented by LEGO is that they don't care enough to
proof their text.
'faciest'?
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Thompson writes:
>
> LEGO has two obligations - one, to themselves, to make money,
> and the second (I'd like to imagine) to make toys that help children
> grow.
>
> You can't make people buy toys that they don't want. LEGO may have
> accurately defined the girl's toy market, even if that market may
> not be what we would ideally want it to be.
>
> But here's what I would suggest. (I argued for this a long time
> ago on r.t.l, and when I saw the Belville castle sets, I felt such
> a sense of deja vu that I wondered if perhaps my ideas had
> been read by LEGO ..... I know, vanity.)
>
> I personally would prefer for LEGO to extend what they've done for
> Belville, to the Castle line -- just not so pink. Girls like
> castles and fairy tale stuff. Make pegasii, unicorns, witches,
> princesses, queens, princes, kings, etc. Just make the sets gender
> neutral - you don't need transparent pink castles. Fairy tale
> things are the sort of sets that would appeal to both
> boys and girls.
I *so* agree. I, as a "girl", like the royal family, pegsasii (plural pegasus,
right?), and unicorns (1), and would enjoy stuff like that in LEGO. I also
like soldiers and guards, and would enjoy seeing a feudal system line of
castles, with Barons and Lords, etc. (I'm making the Bat Lord pledging
allegiance to the Royal King... :-) Maybe that's because I'm a bit older than
the girls LEGO is aiming for, maybe not.
Also, in a recent (real) survey I did, almost all girls I asked either didn't
like pink, or simply hated pink. Also, even if they did like (or even LOVE)
pink, that wouldn't be a reason to buy the set.
> You could split the line into two categories, one more dedicated
> to the romance of castle (with unicorns, princesses,
> queens, etc) and one more dedicated to war, if you had to.
Seems reasonable - though it doesn't have to be two different themes, just
different sets that could, if people wanted, be put together.
> Oddly enough, that's what LEGO has already done with the 2000
> castle sets, dividing the line into the warlike faction and the
> romantic knights faction. But they could do so further without
> cheeseballing it up so much that a little boy wouldn't want to
> play with it.
I'm not really sure what you mean - Belville and Knights, or Knights and Cow-
men?
>
> The castle line is the single line that is most likely to appeal
> to both genders, since everyone grows up hearing fairy tales.
> I don't care if LEGO wants to compete with Barbie directly, but
> I think they're missing the boat by not doing more to make the castle
> sets appeal to both sexes. Castles aren't just about hypermasculine
> angry scowling robbers armed with rubber-tipped missiles (sheesh).
I agree...
-Shiri
(1) How 'bout a removable horn for the unicorn?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Thompson writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> > It brings up a thorny question of cultural relativism. Do we just shrug and
> > say hey, difference of culture, or is it okay to say, no, that's not right,
> > no matter what culture you're in there are some basic principles of human
> > equality which should be treated as universal standards?
> >
> > I understand the value of respecting other cultures. And I further
> > understand the pragmatic need to at least understand and work within the
> > existing cultural framework. But it seems like corporate attitudes like the
> > one expressed here are bad no matter where you are.
> >
> > I'm not saying this to be part of some sort of PC thought police -- I
> > certainly don't think it should be illegal for Lego to market things this
> > way. But I think that a company which seems so concerned with the positive
> > development of children should put more consideration into these issues.
> >
> >
> > Maybe this is getting off topic...
>
> LEGO has two obligations - one, to themselves, to make money,
> and the second (I'd like to imagine) to make toys that help children
> grow.
>
> You can't make people buy toys that they don't want. LEGO may have
> accurately defined the girl's toy market, even if that market may
> not be what we would ideally want it to be.
>
> But here's what I would suggest. (I argued for this a long time
> ago on r.t.l, and when I saw the Belville castle sets, I felt such
> a sense of deja vu that I wondered if perhaps my ideas had
> been read by LEGO ..... I know, vanity.)
>
> I personally would prefer for LEGO to extend what they've done for
> Belville, to the Castle line -- just not so pink. Girls like
> castles and fairy tale stuff. Make pegasii, unicorns, witches,
> princesses, queens, princes, kings, etc. Just make the sets gender
> neutral - you don't need transparent pink castles. Fairy tale
> things are the sort of sets that would appeal to both
> boys and girls.
>
> You could split the line into two categories, one more dedicated
> to the romance of castle (with unicorns, princesses,
> queens, etc) and one more dedicated to war, if you had to.
>
> Oddly enough, that's what LEGO has already done with the 2000
> castle sets, dividing the line into the warlike faction and the
> romantic knights faction. But they could do so further without
> cheeseballing it up so much that a little boy wouldn't want to
> play with it.
>
> The castle line is the single line that is most likely to appeal
> to both genders, since everyone grows up hearing fairy tales.
> I don't care if LEGO wants to compete with Barbie directly, but
> I think they're missing the boat by not doing more to make the castle
> sets appeal to both sexes. Castles aren't just about hypermasculine
> angry scowling robbers armed with rubber-tipped missiles (sheesh).
Check out www.bestlock.com (?)
Erin
--
> --
>
> jthompson@esker.com "float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Thompson writes:
> > Oddly enough, that's what LEGO has already done with the 2000
> > castle sets, dividing the line into the warlike faction and the
> > romantic knights faction. But they could do so further without
> > cheeseballing it up so much that a little boy wouldn't want to
> > play with it.
>
> I'm not really sure what you mean - Belville and Knights, or Knights and Cow-
> men?
The knights vs the moo-men.
The knights come with a king, a princess, and a warrior babe, steps to
make the sets girl-friendly?
The moo-men are much more boyish, testosterone-poisoned sets.
>
> I agree...
>
> -Shiri
>
> (1) How 'bout a removable horn for the unicorn?
Right! A horse with a hole in his head for a horn element.
And a saddle with horizontal clips to hold feathered pegasus
wings.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
| |
Erin Windross <dwindross@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
> Check out www.bestlock.com (?)
<URL:http://www.best-lock.com/>, actually.
"Worldwide Number 1 for Military Construction Bricks" doesn't sound exactly
where I want to be going. :)
They do have some interesting set designs.
But from what I've heard, they suffer from quality issues.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> quote from the Scala web site:
>
> <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
>
>
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
>
> Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative building
> and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to stretch
> their minds.
>
> Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please the
> man in your life.
Well I was off line for a while and am just catching up. Some of you I am sure
have seen my postings relating to LEGO and girls in the "Introducing LEGO
Direct" Thread. I actually seem to have started a lot of conversation on this
topic with my post there.
http://www.lugnet.com/general/?n=11727
I know Matthew has been posting there as well and I thank him for finding this.
This trully is disgusting. As someone already said I am sure this has
something to do with the culture in the country where LEGO is based but I have
a hard time believing that these types of steriotypes could be pertetuated by a
company that I thought was progressive.
I for one would as that this description be removed as soon as possible. I
don't think that the typo needs to be fixed I think the entire description
needs to be removed.
Pertetuating these types of steriotypes only serves to demean girls and women
into thinking that the pleasing and serving of men should be there goal in
life. LEGO needs to learn that girls are just as creative and smart as any boy
and they need to be given credit as equals.
LEGO please make this right.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
>
|
|
| |
Eric Kingsley <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote:
> I know Matthew has been posting there as well and I thank him for finding this.
> This trully is disgusting. As someone already said I am sure this has
For the record, Karen thinks it's pretty awful too.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> Erin Windross <dwindross@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
> > Check out www.bestlock.com (?)
>
> <URL:http://www.best-lock.com/>, actually.
>
> "Worldwide Number 1 for Military Construction Bricks" doesn't sound exactly
> where I want to be going. :)
>
> They do have some interesting set designs.
>
> But from what I've heard, they suffer from quality issues.
I saw some of these for the first time at a Target last weekend.
You can open the lid of the box and look inside to see the pieces. They
don't even look as if they would be LEGO compatible, although they claim
to work with other building bricks. Something about the studs looked wrong -
they looked too high.
Could have been my imagination, and perhaps they are compatible, but they
looked CHEEEEEEEAP and NAAAAAASTY.
Pity -- I've been looking at the Best Lock web site for a long time
with hopeful expectations.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
| |
Nephilim wrote:
> > (1) How 'bout a removable horn for the unicorn?
>
> Right! A horse with a hole in his head for a horn element.
...and this would give rise to a new piece - 1x1 round TILE, to cover it, as they
could switch to ONE mold for horses ;-) And they could make a grey war spike for
horses, along with the horn.
> And a saddle with horizontal clips to hold feathered pegasus
> wings.
SADDLE? On a PEGASUS?!?! How DARE you! ;-) You either learn to ride bareback,
or you don't ride!
'Sides, I already HAVE a pegasus - black horse, black dragon wings ;-)
Though white feathered wings would be nice for a "proper" white pegasus. (I mean,
really, pegasii use magic to fly, NOT their wings, so it doesn't matter if they
are feathered or leathery bat wings, except for aesthetics).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Tom Stangl, VFAQman <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote:
> SADDLE? On a PEGASUS?!?! How DARE you! ;-) You either learn to ride bareback,
> or you don't ride!
I think you're allowed to use a magic bridle though.
(You have to ask Athena nicely.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
And to reply to myself (losing it...)...
Let's bring up the OTHER Fantasy stuff discussed before.
Dragons - gimme a break. The current ones are TOO SMALL. Bring out dragon SETS -
bricks/slopes/plates/tiles to build a *DRAGON* - i.e. 100ft scale minimum.
Bring out dragons in EVERY conceivable color - there are NO green dragon wings, and
NO red dragon to match the red wings. We need white, blue, bronze, brown, gold, etc
dragons (Pern!).
And to add:
Fantasy/legend sets/figs - cyclops, Minotaur, gryphon, etc, etc, etc.
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> Nephilim wrote:
>
> > > (1) How 'bout a removable horn for the unicorn?
> >
> > Right! A horse with a hole in his head for a horn element.
>
> ...and this would give rise to a new piece - 1x1 round TILE, to cover it, as they
> could switch to ONE mold for horses ;-) And they could make a grey war spike for
> horses, along with the horn.
>
> > And a saddle with horizontal clips to hold feathered pegasus
> > wings.
>
> SADDLE? On a PEGASUS?!?! How DARE you! ;-) You either learn to ride bareback,
> or you don't ride!
>
> 'Sides, I already HAVE a pegasus - black horse, black dragon wings ;-)
>
> Though white feathered wings would be nice for a "proper" white pegasus. (I mean,
> really, pegasii use magic to fly, NOT their wings, so it doesn't matter if they
> are feathered or leathery bat wings, except for aesthetics).
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
> <URL:http://www.best-lock.com/>, actually.
>
> "Worldwide Number 1 for Military Construction Bricks" doesn't sound exactly
> where I want to be going. :)
Well, it is a gaping hole that TLC hasn't touched yet, IMNSHO, and I am
glad another company is keying in on it. Unfortunately, there quality is
not too good. Best-Lock has nice sets, I would love seeing LEGO produce
some of them.
_________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn
CAD Operator
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Work Page:
http://www.aeieng.com/
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
Main LEGO Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Soon to come: Star Wars LEGO Sets Parts Selling Page!
Quote of the Month: (In Slate)
Al Gore: "Even though national security policy didn't come up, I
suggested that one critical issue for voters to ponder is this:
Whose FINGER do you want on the CONTROL-ALT-DELETE button?"
These are the same people who sued MICROSOFT, folks. If he is that
ignorant about computers, he should not be anywhere near controlling
anything, much less the United States.
|
|
| |
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:22:42 GMT, "Tom Stangl, VFAQman"
<talonts@vfaq.com> wrote:
> Bring out dragons in EVERY conceivable color - there are NO green dragon wings, and
> NO red dragon to match the red wings. We need white, blue, bronze, brown, gold, etc
> dragons (Pern!).
So do we want AIVAS playsets, and "Three Sisters of Dawn" spaceship
sets, Hatching playsets, Weyr sets to huge scale, etc?
I knew you could shout "yes" very loudly.
Jasper
|
|
| |
Actually, TLC could do this without taking the deep dive into the
military theme. Several months back I asked for a tub of alternate color
bricks (http://www.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=433). One of those colors
could be olive. That color, with the others, would open the door to MOCs
in this area. Of course having olive and the other colors in plates
would be needed as well.
Ray
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > <URL:http://www.best-lock.com/>, actually.
> >
> > "Worldwide Number 1 for Military Construction Bricks" doesn't sound exactly
> > where I want to be going. :)
>
> Well, it is a gaping hole that TLC hasn't touched yet, IMNSHO, and I am
> glad another company is keying in on it. Unfortunately, there quality is
> not too good. Best-Lock has nice sets, I would love seeing LEGO produce
> some of them.
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Scott E. Sanburn
> CAD Operator
> Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
>
> Work Page:
> http://www.aeieng.com/
>
> Home Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
>
> Main LEGO Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
>
> Soon to come: Star Wars LEGO Sets Parts Selling Page!
>
> Quote of the Month: (In Slate)
>
> Al Gore: "Even though national security policy didn't come up, I
> suggested that one critical issue for voters to ponder is this:
> Whose FINGER do you want on the CONTROL-ALT-DELETE button?"
>
> These are the same people who sued MICROSOFT, folks. If he is that
> ignorant about computers, he should not be anywhere near controlling
> anything, much less the United States.
|
|
| |
Ray Sanders wrote:
>
> Actually, TLC could do this without taking the deep dive into the
> military theme. Several months back I asked for a tub of alternate color
> bricks (http://www.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=433). One of those colors
> could be olive. That color, with the others, would open the door to MOCs
> in this area. Of course having olive and the other colors in plates
> would be needed as well.
Yes, I read that thread when it first came out.
Well, I know this statement will shock some of you out there, but I
don't think there is anything wrong with a military theme at all.
Dancing around it is just as foolhardy as avoiding all together. I for
one, would love to see an Apache, an M1-A1 tank, in camouflage, desert,
and maybe even an ice color scheme, a Hummer, etc. I have not built any
as of yet, but I think it would be neat to see. Maybe even a Cold War
sets, with Russians, Britain's, the US, etc. But I know it wouldn't
happen from TLC (TLG, LG, LC).
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn
CAD Operator
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Work Page:
http://www.aeieng.com/
Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
Main LEGO Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Soon to come: Star Wars LEGO Sets Parts Selling Page!
Quote of the Month: (In Slate)
Al Gore: "Even though national security policy didn't come up, I
suggested that one critical issue for voters to ponder is this:
Whose FINGER do you want on the CONTROL-ALT-DELETE button?"
These are the same people who sued MICROSOFT, folks. If he is that
ignorant about computers, he should not be anywhere near controlling
anything, much less the United States.
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message ...
> I agree, Tamy. I've discussed this general topic with a few Danish women • and
> they hardly saw anything wrong with such statements as the one quoted.
I hardly see anything wrong with it myself :-P
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
> There is an interesting book, which I'm sorry to say I've only read a • fraction
> of, titled: Americans in Denmark. It examines the cultural differences from • the
> point of view of American creatives who decided to call Denmark their home. • It
> particularly focuses on how the culture affected their creativity -- but • the
> American women did mention their female roles in Danish society as being a
> "minus" when questioned.
>
> -Suz
>
> The book at Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080931536X/baseplate/
>
>
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Tamyra Teed writes:
> > That is bad, though since I'm taking Sociology this semester, I have to
> > look at how the culture of where this company exists is much different
> > than ours in the US. You notice how those products do sell better in
> > europe than the US, and you can be pretty sure it's because of the
> > marketing. Even though it's not a good strategy for the US. it must be
> > for the EU countries. Which is something Lego Marketing should probably
> > dig a little deeper into. Even though this world is so globally
> > interdependant, it's light years away being in the same cultures.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tamy
> > "Stands back and watches this thread die"
> >
> >
> > Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of • the
> > > LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> > > restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out • this
> > > quote from the Scala web site:
> > >
> > > <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
> > >
> > >
> > > "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> > > sure Christian will like it"
> > >
> > > Lego for boys is ("juniorization" not withstanding) about creative • building
> > > and play. It's about imaginative scenarios and encouraging kids to • stretch
> > > their minds.
> > >
> > > Lego for girls is about learning that the important thing is to please • the
> > > man in your life.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthew Miller ---> • mattdm@mattdm.org
> > > Quotes 'R' Us ---> • http://quotes-r-us.org/
> >
> > --
> > Keep on Bricken'
> > -Tamy
> >
> > Follow the bouncing boxes!
> > http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
> >
> > http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
> > http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
> > Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> The basic existence of a special dumbed-down and pinked-up segment of the
> LEGO universe designated for girls (and the corresponding boys-only
> restriction for Technic and even System) is bad enough, but check out this
> quote from the Scala web site:
>
> <URL:http://www.lego.com/catalog/eur/product.asp?number=3135>
>
> "I bought the faciest [sic] summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. I am
> sure Christian will like it"
Oddly enough, I've heard, asked, and seen, that women dress more for each
other than for men. While I realize that this line could be a special case, it
would have been better if TLC could have made it more [typical] like this:
"I bought the fanciest summer wear in Marita's fashion shop. All the girls
shop there now."
-Tom McD.
when replying, rumor has it that spamcake was the result of a Majisto magic
experiment gone horribly wrong.
www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
Nephilim <jthompson@esker.com> wrote:
> I personally would prefer for LEGO to extend what they've done for
> Belville, to the Castle line -- just not so pink. Girls like castles
> and fairy tale stuff. Make pegasii, unicorns, witches, princesses,
> queens, princes, kings, etc. Just make the sets gender neutral - you
> don't need transparent pink castles. Fairy tale things are the sort
> of sets that would appeal to both boys and girls.
I tried a version of this last year with my advent calendar for my
niece. She got the big castle set (in 24 sections) with a princess
added in one of the two towers. It was quite popular, but I can't say
for sure that it wouldn't have been popular, even without the princess.
Play well,
Jacob
--
»Daniela« - a small, classical LEGO sailboat:
http://lego.sparre-andersen.dk/Transport/Skibe/Daniela/
|
|
|
