Lego _IS_ aware of us
David Karr
ft...@dhow.vr.dnv.no (Frode Torske) writes:
>According to the article, Lego think it is nice to have enthusiasts out
>there/here?, but they are a bit concerned that use of the offical logo
>may confuse someone to believe it is an official page.
No kidding! I've already gotten a piece of hate e-mail from some guy
who said he didn't want LEGOland in Carlsbad. He addressed me as if I
had some sort of role in that issue. And I don't even have any LEGO
logo on my own pages---just my photos and some PostScript drawings of
generic bricks!
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Frode. I hope this doesn't
foreshadow the removal of any of our LEGO sites from the Web. I
believe we LEGO fans on the Internet form one of the purest fan clubs
ever: all volunteer effort and no politics (well, almost none; we've
just had some growing pains over the ethics of Web publishing, and
maybe this is a signal that we're in for some more).
-- David A. Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu)
-- LEGO URL: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/karr/lego/index.html
Todd Lehman
> Reading an article in the American Computerworld, issue dated sep. 11,
> about the Internet having had a near halt, my eyes catches the following
> line below the article:
>
> "Unauthorized Web page bemuses Lego's lawyers. See p. 68"
If it's not too much typing, could you give us the whole article?
> Going to p. 68 I find out that it is in fact Kavid Koblas Web page they are
> referring to.
Hey, how come this page is so out-of-date? Looks like no one has updated it
since last December...
> According to the article, Lego think it is nice to have enthusiasts out
> there/here?, but they are a bit concerned that use of the offical logo
> may confuse someone to believe it is an official page.
Sounds like they need to provide non-official sites with some sort of
"non-official site" logo, bitmap, or phrase, hmm?
I also wonder if the server name legowww.homepages.com worries them... I
think I'd be worried somewhat...
> It also mentions that this is a common "problem" for many companies having
> fans putting up unofficial pages.
Welcome to the information age, I guess.
> I must mention here that the article mentions that David has a disclaimer
> on his page.
Unfortunately, that disclaimer is at the bottom of the page -- and the
top looks rather official.
I think it's a valid concern in this case.
> Lego also reportedly has their own "task force working on setting up an
> official on-line precence" (quote).
Heh heh. It's going to be interesting to see how it compares to all of
the "fan" sites. And to the TRU site.
--Todd
Eileen Keeney
: We could do a lot to ease these concerns. Why doesn't everyone with a
: LEGO(TM) :) page put a simple one or two lines right at the very top
: of the pages (in small print if you like) to the effect of "This web
: page is not an official Lego web page."
If we use very small print, that doesn't accomplish the task of making
it OBVIOUS that the page is not associated with the LEGO company.
:I know some people already
: have similar disclaimers, but putting one right up there at the
: very top on all your lego pages could help a lot in the r.t.l./lego PR
: department.
I actually think that we should completely remove the official trademark
from any of our pages.
[ Only because LEGO has concerns over them ].
I think that it is in our best interest to have the best possible
relationship with the LEGO corporation.
We can use the word LEGO, without using the official trademark of the
company.
Also, I think that there was a problem with someone having a link from
a LEGO page to a link to something that LEGO did not approve of
( I don't remember the details). I can see where the web world ignorant
can mis-interpret such things. Often someone links their page to
another person's page, and that other person my have a link somewhere
else etc ....
So in the best interest of public relations with the company whose toys
we all seem to adore, I would suggest we do a few things :
1) do not use any offical LEGO LOGO without permission.
[ We can use the word LEGO without putting it in their official LOGO ].
2) be careful as to what links we set up that can be gotten to
from any page displaying LEGO.
3) know what paths can be found from any page that have links from
your LEGO page leading too.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
|Eileen F. Keeney |email: eil...@hpcvnefk.cv.hp.com
|Hewlett Packard, Corvallis, ICBD |phone: (503) 715-3140
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frode Torske
about the Internet having had a near halt, my eyes catches the following
line below the article:
"Unauthorized Web page bemuses Lego's lawyers. See p. 68"
Going to p. 68 I find out that it is in fact Kavid Koblas Web page they are
referring to.
According to the article, Lego think it is nice to have enthusiasts out
there/here?, but they are a bit concerned that use of the offical logo
may confuse someone to believe it is an official page.
It also mentions that this is a common "problem" for many companies having
fans putting up unofficial pages.
I must mention here that the article mentions that David has a disclaimer
on his page.
Lego also reportedly has their own "task force working on setting up an
official on-line precence" (quote).
--
This is Frode's sig. ;-)
Jason E Pierce
=> According to the article, Lego think it is nice to have enthusiasts out
=> there/here?, but they are a bit concerned that use of the offical logo
=> may confuse someone to believe it is an official page.
We could do a lot to ease these concerns. Why doesn't everyone with a
LEGO(TM) :) page put a simple one or two lines right at the very top
of the pages (in small print if you like) to the effect of "This web
page is not an official Lego web page." I know some people already
have similar disclaimers, but putting one right up there at the
very top on all your lego pages could help a lot in the r.t.l./lego PR
department.
--
|- . ... -- home page: http://tam2000.tamu.edu/~jep9236 -|
|- :ason :.:ierce -- snail: PO Box 13209 -- mailto:jpi...@tamu.edu -|
|- .' : -- mail College Station, TX 77841-6209 -|
Jason S. Mantor
with web pages devoted to lego. After reading Frode's post, I immediatley
placed a disclaimer on my main page. Why I hadn't done this before, I don't
know...<shrug>
The thing that worries me is that if they've seen Koblias' pages
then they've prolly visited David Karr's and everyone who's linked to that.
I wonder if somewhere in the bowels of Interlego A/G, corporate lawyers are
deciding what if anything to do about me and my parts/kits sales. AFAIK,
I'm in the clear legally, but I still *shudder* to think ...
The part about them establishing a web presence both elates and
worries me. If they actually set up a system to do whatI'm trying to do
it will benefit us all greatly, but it will probably crush my little venture.
I'm probably being too reactionary, but I'm going to go through my
pages and remove scans and put disclaimers every where.
-Jason
Guy Watkins
>So in the best interest of public relations with the company whose toys
>we all seem to adore, I would suggest we do a few things :
>3) know what paths can be found from any page that have links from
> your LEGO page leading too.
But it is a Web! There is no begining and no end, and links are just
that. Within two steps from a stright lego page you can get almost
anything!
Paul John Gyugyi
No kidding! I've already gotten a piece of hate e-mail from some guy
who said he didn't want LEGOland in Carlsbad. He addressed me as if I
had some sort of role in that issue. And I don't even have any LEGO
logo on my own pages---just my photos and some PostScript drawings of
generic bricks!
Yeah, I got the same hatemail. I replied to his account, and cc'd the
postmaster, reminding him of the Exon act, etc. I strongly considered
including instructions on how to use an anonymous remailer, but then
I decided that I'd rather have my morons be clueless.
-gyug
--
=--=-==-==--=-=-=--==-=-==--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==--==-=-==--==-=-==-==
Paul Gyugyi pa...@gyugyi.com http://www.gyugyi.com/
Karim Nassar
> :I know some people already
> : have similar disclaimers, but putting one right up there at the
> : very top on all your lego pages could help a lot in the r.t.l./lego PR
> : department.
>
> I actually think that we should completely remove the official trademark
> from any of our pages.
The official Lego Logo does not appear anywhere on my page. It is a
matter of pride to me to generate all of my header graphics & bullets
myself. (I have "faked" the logo for an image of a lego plate, but that
doesn't count as it is not intended to be the logo, but rather an image
of a piece of lego).
> I think that it is in our best interest to have the best possible
> relationship with the LEGO corporation.
> We can use the word LEGO, without using the official trademark of the
> company.
I agree completely. In fact, if there is interest, I will be happy to
generate some "more generic" lego homepage graphics and upload them to
earthsea.
> So in the best interest of public relations with the company whose toys
> we all seem to adore, I would suggest we do a few things :
>
> 1) do not use any offical LEGO LOGO without permission.
> [ We can use the word LEGO without putting it in their official LOGO ].
>
> 2) be careful as to what links we set up that can be gotten to
> from any page displaying LEGO.
>
> 3) know what paths can be found from any page that have links from
> your LEGO page leading too.
I understand what you are saying, but I just want to point out that as
carefull as we are about where our pages are linked, the basic nature of
the web conspires against us. I am quite sure that as carefull as anyone
is, I can find a chain of no more than 8 links to "questionable sites".
For example, if a page has a link to a personal page that has a link to
the person's official university page, It will prolly have links to other
student's pages and one- of them will most certainly have a link to
pornographic material, or somesuch. That is just four links from a Lego
page to pornography. Here is an example:
From David Karr's Lego page, link to--
David Karr's Homepage, link to--
Other Students in the CS Department, link to--
[Student's name omitted]'s homepage, link to--
[Unnamed Student's] Page of Links, link to--
The Official Playboy Page.
That is 5 links from David Karr's Lego page to The Official Playboy page
(I'm not picking on you David, it's just that you are one of the most
level-headed and respectable people here and also I figured that you would
certainly recognize the statistical validity of this arguement). I am
sure we all agree that David's intentions are above-board here-- He just
has a link to a page of the many Web pages of students enroled in Cornel's
CS dept. The only connection here is the links of the Web. In fact I
just used this as an example and found this path in just under 5 minutes.
The fact is that if any of us have a single link to a page that is not
under our direct control, then we have the situation above, guarranteed.
I just checked my page and even though I only have links to 15 other
pages that I don't have any control over, (excepting Lego pages) I have
already (in 15 minutes) found two porn pages within 8 links of my legopage.
I have a path from my lego page back to my homepage. From my homepage I
have a link to another page that has links to other homepages of friends and
the like. Now, I am not willing to disconnect my lego page from my
homepage or remove my list of links. It is therefore possible to get to
ANY page in the world from my Lego page (indirectly). This situation is
common for most of our lego webpages, and in fact, it is a fundamental
characteristic of the Web itself.
The only way to keep our Lego pages out of chains that lead to
"questionable material" is to totally disconnect them from every site
(except perhaps each other;^)...). This is unreasonable.
--karim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karim Nassar The Phoenix "Is it not strange that sheep's guts
---------------------------- should hale souls out of men's bodies?"
k...@sunsite.unc.edu -- W. Shakespeare
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/k/knassar/pnest/nest.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex or Kira Botkin
there were many lego homepages and also mentioned RTL. I haven't heard
from them yet. They probably do not have anyone on the internet and so
are waiting to get someone there before they answer my letter. they
wouyld not want to tsend a negatively responding letter back. I've also
noticed that whatever questions you ask they have specific paragraphs and
if they do not have a paragraph for the question they either ignore it
completely or send youa minifig, the example eing where I asked them what
sets the forest wencha and princess came in , and also about the
multiracial minifigs and women figs. HTey answered my questiones about
the women and multiracial figs but instead of an answer about the forest
wench and princess they included a pirate wench torso, princess, and some
wigs.
My 0.02
shalom,
Kira
--
HOMEPAGE http://www.nauticom.net/users/botkin EMAIL bot...@pgh.nauticom.net
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari? | LEGO: CA+++ (6071) #+ SL S Hal M+ A+ YB83f | Make my life
easier - join rec.toys.lego! | Have you kissed your damselfish today?
Ken koleda
plans for an internet presence anytime soon. This source seemed quite
confident, although I cannot subjectively judge the knowledge that this
person might have of the subject. Also, the way the internet has
exploded... and how easy it is getting a web page for example, it could be
something that is done that few at LEGO would need to know.
Also, unless one is doing something that is really harming them, I would
like to think that they would not be terribly aggressive.
Just my 2 cents.
Ken
Frode Torske
>>
Frode Torske <ft...@dhow.vr.dnv.no> writes:
> Reading an article in the American Computerworld, issue dated sep. 11,
> about the Internet having had a near halt, my eyes catches the following
> line below the article:
>
> "Unauthorized Web page bemuses Lego's lawyers. See p. 68"
If it's not too much typing, could you give us the whole article?
<<
Ok, here it is. Please disregard any typing errors.
I'll also post a follow-up with my own reflections on this theme.
Frode
PS. I hope posting the article isn't a too eclatent violation on
some copyright law. ;-)
----------------- Article follows below --------------------------
Article about unauthorized (Lego) Web pages in Computerworld, Sep. 11, 1995:
"Pointer" on p. 16:
Unauthorized Web page bemuses Lego's lawyers.
Article on p. 68:
Title:
"Lego finds unauthorized Web pages easy to build"
It has the Lego logo. It shows the familiar, colorful Lego toy bricks.
It's called the Lego WWW server, and it certainly looks like a World Wide
Web site set up by Lego Systems, Inc., makers of the building blocks.
But it's not. The Web site is actually run by Lego fan David Koblas,
president of Home Pages, Inc. in Mountain Veiw, Calif.
Unauthorized commercial Web pages, which tout a company's products but
aren't sanctioned by the company, are sprouting on the Web. While
flattering, the unofficial sites also raise issues about whether
consumers will be confused and whether corporate trademarks are being
violated.
Koblas' Lego site sports product listings, pictures of home-built Lego
constructions, project ideas, a history of Lego bricks aand even a Lego
theme song. <it also has an official-sounding address:
http:///legowww.homepages.com/.
However, the site does include a disclaimer noting that it is not
sponsored by the toy company and that Lego is a registered trademark.
A Lego System spokesman in Enfield, Conn., said there are several
unofficial on-line Lego sites, but the company is taking a rather
permissive approach to them.
"It's very nice to have that many enthusiasts sharing ideas
(via the Internet), but there can be some confusion with people
thinking we own it because the enthusiasts use our logo," the spokesman
said. He added that the company has a task force working on setting up
an official on-line presence.
Hands off
What about the use of the trademarked logo? "We take our copyrights,
trademarks and brand equity very seriously, and we watch it carefully,"
the Lego spokesman said. So far, though, no legal action has been taken
against the unofficial sites.
Other organizations haven't taken such a benign view. The founder of an
Elvis Presley home page reportedly faced legal action from Elvis Presley
Enterprises, Inc. and was forced to drop the Cyber Graceland Tour and
other Elvis images.
Barry D. Weiss, a lawyer at Gordon & Glickson in Chigago, recommended
that companies in Lego's situation try to formalize the relationship
with a contract, similar to those used with fan clubs or user groups,
that allows the unaffiliated boosters to use the trademark and
copyrighted material.
"Now, it's flattering, and free publicity, but what if that changes?
The company has no control over the situation without a formal agreement,"
Weiss said.
"If you allow people to use a trademark without authorization, you're
risking the loss of those rights."
Recently, some Web sites have taken to including the words "official" or
"unofficial" in their names to avoid confusion. Examples include The
Official U.S. Open Tennis Web Site, sponsored by IBM, and the Unofficial
NBA Visual Directory, a guide to National Basketball Association players.
Frode Torske
1. Don't use the Lego logo.
It's the sole most powerful item signalling this is an offical page.
2. Photos, both of self-made creations and official sets, can't be wrong.
It's no law against taking pictures of things.
As long as it just shows a model, not re-creating building instructions,
catalogues, etc.
(I've scanned in the whole service catalogue. <gulp> I've planned to replace
that with a list anyway, learning from a S@H cat. I got recently that there
aren't that many spare parts sets _not_ available in the U.S.)
Postscript pictures of generic bricks must be OK. After all, the brick
"pattern" is no longer protected/copyrighted. As long as the logo is not
on top of the studs, who can tell whether it is a Lego brick or a Mega
block?
Actually, I believe the patent on the system as such expired much before
the pattern protection, allowing competitors to copy the system as long
as the clones didn't mach with Lego. (F.ex. TENTE, which there have been
some postings about recently). But it was only when the clonemakers were
allowed to produce bricks which were fully compatible with Lego thay had
a chanse to obtain market shares.
Scans of historical cats. I would say is OK.
3. Add a disclaimer.
4. URL and title should not be too "official"
As mentioned in article, the URL to David Koblas' page: legowww.homepages.inc
may indicate this is an official page, while the URL to my page:
www.ifi.uio.no/~frodet/lego clearly signals this is someones private page.
Also, avoid titles like "The lego page". This is the title on my page. I will
change it to "Frode's Lego page". Changing it to "Frode's plastic building
brick, of which Lego is the leading brand, page" would be going too far. ;-)
5. Auctions and sporting selling and buying bricks must be OK. These are
activities that follow naturally from having Lego as a hobby.
It is perfectly legal for me as a citizen to get sets from USA without
paying any costoms, as long as it is on a "hobby" level, but if I do it
for business, that's something different. And judging from the "Most unopened
sets competition", I'd say that "hobby" level stretches a loooong way.
6. Take care of which links you have on your page. Mixing Lego links with
linkt to f.ex. www.playboy.com isn't advisable. But I'd say your
responsibility stops with the link. (However, you _could_ take a look
at the page to see whether it is something you really care to point to.)
7. Last but not least: Use common sence!
There are the rules I will adhere to in the future.
Frode,
Oslo, Norway
FireDog
Keeney) wrote:
>
> Also, I think that there was a problem with someone having a link from
> a LEGO page to a link to something that LEGO did not approve of
> ( I don't remember the details). I can see where the web world ignorant
> can mis-interpret such things. Often someone links their page to
> another person's page, and that other person my have a link somewhere
> else etc ....
>
actually, it was the other way around, one of the liquor companies had a
link to someones lego page, and you know how much control we have over
people sticking links to our stuff. Lego felt it was wrong, even tho
whoever had the page had no control over who put a link ot him.
reg
(no it doesnt make sense to me either...I just got home from the Elton
John concert and I"m still to keyed up!! :)
reg
====================
'`~~~'` -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1
\/@~@\/ GAT d-@ s: a- C+++@ W++$ N++ M++ PS+ t++@
\ / 5++ X+ tv++ b++++ DI+++ !D- G e+ h$ r+++ x+
0 Woof ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
LEGO: CA+++1(6060) PI+++2(6286) AQ++3 TO+(6440) TR+(6399) #++ S+ LS++
Eileen Keeney
: your LEGO page leading too.
To clarify what I was trying to say, I'm talking about direct links.
Also, if when people link to each other's pages they would link directly
to the LEGO page part, and not the person's home page then a path back to
the person's home page, leading to the person's other interests would
not be accessable via the LEGO path. This would require us to design
our pages such that the LEGO part is a page that our home page links
to, and it does not have a link back to our home page except via the
[back] function (which takes one back to where THEY came from).
Some people design their pages, and then start adding links to all their
pages from any given page. If this is done, then of course people end
up being able to go into a LEGO page and then from there onto any other
linked pages of the person whose LEGO page they are in.
But that type of design isn't necessary.
How about a design as follows:
pages for person A and B:
home_page_A ------> LEGO_page_A ---->LEGO_page_B
\------> other_interst_A
home_page_B ------> LEGO_page_B --->LEGO_page_A
\------> other_interest_B
Someone linking to personal_LEGO_page_B from personal_LEGO_page_A does
not have a direct path back to home_page_A or to other_interest_A
unless LEGO_page_A is designed to do that.
It becomes an issue of design standards, and isn't
as difficult as it may sound at first. Since almost everyone with LEGO
pages reads this group, it isn't difficult to communicate standards like
these ( I'm sure it is difficult to agree on them, but ideas can be
exchanged and such, leading to some general trends).
And then how much work do we really want to go to to for the sole sake of
good relations with the LEGO company (who does seem to care what links
can be interpreted to be associated with someones LEGO interest).
( I do have to admit, that I've found some interesting links
on peoples pages, that I might never have found if it hadn't been for
their LEGO page. I likely would have never visited some
of those pages, such as Bianca's Smut Shack, had it not been for the
person's LEGO link. )
--
____________________________________________________________________________
|Eileen F. Keeney |email: eil...@peak.org
Todd Lehman
> 1. Don't use the Lego logo.
> It's the sole most powerful item signalling this is an offical page.
In any form? What about in different colors, or as a grey background?
What about scanned LEGO studs for a background image or bullets? If I
scan a baseplate, I'm just taking a photo of it.
> [...]
> Also, avoid titles like "The lego page". This is the title on my page. I will
> change it to "Frode's Lego page". Changing it to "Frode's plastic building
> brick, of which Lego is the leading brand, page" would be going too far. ;-)
I was thinking of using something cheesy like "Planet LEGO" for a while, but
I'll probably stick with "The Fibblesnork LEGO Pit" until I can come up with
something even more stoopit.
--Todd
Todd Lehman
> (I've scanned in the whole service catalogue. <gulp> I've planned to replace
> that with a list anyway, learning from a S@H cat. I got recently that there
> aren't that many spare parts sets _not_ available in the U.S.)
Instead of replacing your scans, why don't you password-protect that page?
--Todd
Brian Ward
|So in the best interest of public relations with the company whose toys
|we all seem to adore, I would suggest we do a few things :
|3) know what paths can be found from any page that have links from
| your LEGO page leading too.
I suggest dropping this one. To put it lightly, it's absurd.
Karim Nassar
> : 3) know what paths can be found from any page that have links from
> : your LEGO page leading too.
>
> To clarify what I was trying to say, I'm talking about direct links.
> Also, if when people link to each other's pages they would link directly
> to the LEGO page part, and not the person's home page then a path back to
> the person's home page, leading to the person's other interests would
> not be accessable via the LEGO path. This would require us to design
> our pages such that the LEGO part is a page that our home page links
> to, and it does not have a link back to our home page except via the
> [back] function (which takes one back to where THEY came from).
>
But my page is designed with a particular structure in mind and I don't
feel that I should have to "cut off" my homepage from my Lego Page. I
don't have any "questionable links" on any of my pages, and I screen the
pages I link to elsewhere carefully every few months to maintain the
quaility of my page. This still does not keep my lego page free from
questionable paths, but as I said, this is a characteristic of the Web
itself.
(my $.07)
--Karim
LZucaro
Lego has to get a grip. Things that seem to be escaping them...
1) Lego pages generally promote Lego in a very positive way
2) Are probably most often created & run by "adults"
3) They or anybody else can't control Web Linkage
I'm just starting to play around with creating Web pages, and
my Lego home page has the Lego logo as the background tile
(ghosted, of course).
It just seems that what Lego would like the most is completely
against everything the Web and the Net in general are "about."
I certainly don't want little kids browsing the Net and seeing
pictures of kids their own age in sexual situations, or whatever.
But...parents need to take more control and responsibility and
stop blaming the pipe for the shit that comes out of it.
Blah blah blah blah blah
Lou
Jeff Findley
|> Well, you can be sneaky about it. For example, if I accessed
|> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/karr/lego/index.html
|> and there was no backlink, I could edit my "Go To" line to read
|> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/karr/
|> I'd either get the default index.html file or a list of all the
|> files in that directory. Like I said, however, this is rather
|> sneaky and could possibly allow me to have access to information
|> the author did not wish to reveal to the general public.
Sneaky? I thought this was a standard WWW surfing technique.
If the author has information that they do not wish to reveal
to the general public, putting it in a directory which is above
one which contains public information seems pretty silly to me.
JeffF
--
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Jeff.F...@sdrc.com | The above opinions | First things first, |
| SDRC | are my own and do | but not necessarily |
| 2000 Eastman Drive | not reflect the | in that order. |
| Milford OH 45150-2789 | opinions of SDRC. | -- Doctor Who |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Susan Hoover
Karr) writes:
>
> No kidding! I've already gotten a piece of hate e-mail from some guy
> who said he didn't want LEGOland in Carlsbad. He addressed me as if I
> had some sort of role in that issue. And I don't even have any LEGO
> logo on my own pages---just my photos and some PostScript drawings of
> generic bricks!
In article <PJG.95Se...@tranquility.gyugyi.com>,
p...@tranquility.gyugyi.com (Paul John Gyugyi) wrote:
>Yeah, I got the same hatemail. I replied to his account, and cc'd the
>postmaster, reminding him of the Exon act, etc. I strongly considered
>including instructions on how to use an anonymous remailer, but then
>I decided that I'd rather have my morons be clueless.
I'm desperately scratching my head trying to think what could *possibly* be
the negative impact of having a LEGOLAND in one's backyard...
Susan Hoover | I think for myself, mostly, except for
Development Lead, FutureSoft | when the dogs manage to sneak one by me.
-----------------------------| Xica: "Cats are the enemy!"
hoo...@fse.com | Rumples: "Huh?"
-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----Version: 3.1
GCS/E d- s(+):(+) a C+(++)$ !U-- P--- L !E- W+(++)>$ N++ !o-- K-? w++(-)$
O M+ V+ PS+(++) PE Y+ PGP- t !5- X- !R(-) tv b++++(+++)>$
DI++++(+++) D++>$ G e++ h(-) r++ x+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Ed Boxer
lawn. :)
John Cromer
>In article <44pt8g$a...@tattoo.sccsi.com> hoo...@fse.com (Susan Hoover) writes:
>
> I'm desperately scratching my head trying to think what could *possibly* be
> the negative impact of having a LEGOLAND in one's backyard...
>
>they wander by, perhaps? That non-stop click-snap-click noise at 2am?
>Listening to the minifigs talk(*) all the time? :)
The clatter of searching through mountains of plastic pieces looking for that
one special piece.
John