The Middleman Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 New York City, Boston, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. A lot of cities along the coast, as well. (at least in the US)
Sarg_Kulo Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 I don't see what the big problem with a Militery theme is. I mean Star Wars is pretty much militery right? With all the tanks (ctt, mtt at-te at-at e.t.c).
Governor Mister Phes Posted July 27, 2005 Governor Posted July 27, 2005 Now technically (by definition) a town and city are two different things determined by their population. The cities used as examples are quite large indeed, however, in some places there could be major towns half there size. For example. The major town I'm in has a population of 10,000 but it lacks a military base, Marine Base, Airforce Base, Army base.
Sarg_Kulo Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Now technically (by definition) a town and city are two different things determined by their population. The cities used as examples are quite large indeed, however, in some places there could be major towns half there size. For example. The major town I'm in has a population of 10,000 but it lacks a military base, Marine Base, Airforce Base, Army base. ... For military sets I would like jeeps, A gunship/helicopter, a battleship and an army builder with lots of soldiers *glasses* *glasses* *glasses*
Kenn Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Why? because the memory of WWII is still strong with in those running LEGO. Should they have a military line? YES! Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right. It's obviously hypocritical. Imperial army VS. Pirates, Knights VS Forestmen, Cowboys VS Indians, Star WARS, Bionicles. their toys are ripe with war with the middle ages being the bloodiest and most horrific. Bottom line don
Akkhraziel Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Should they have a military line? YES! Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right. Where to begin. First off: should they have a military line ? Maybe, becasue there are a number of liberal mothers in the world who buy their children lego but would boycott the moment they saw lego as going the route of war toys. Its one market versus another, and thats something TLG probably weighs very very carefully. As for the second sentece there, you realize that there would be no danger of of slavery or other such atrocity if military force weren't on the side of wrong. While your poin has some merit, so does the opposite side of that equation. In the long run, it comes down that there are some things that are touchy subjects, modern war and the things that go along within are one of them. Whether its because some parents are too busy (or lazy) to teach their children right from wrong, and what the proper application of force means, or becasue violent toys do promote violent behavior in children (I'm advocating neither position), TLG has decided against stepping into that particular public relations nightmare. It's obviously hypocritical. Imperial army VS. Pirates, Knights VS Forestmen, Cowboys VS Indians, Star WARS, Bionicles. their toys are ripe with war with the middle ages being the bloodiest and most horrific. Yes and no, at its core all of those fall in the realm of 'fantasy violence'. Which is to say western culture has romanticized it and sanitized it to the point that though the events and cultures were violent, there is not the baggage of it being real put on such things. This is an issue with Western culture, not an issue with TLG. After all, we aren't watching versions of Star Wars that look like Saving Private Ryan. For many, fantasy violence is all right, but where that line blurs into realisitc violence, a lot of people gt uncomfortable or unhappy with. Also, wars at their bloodiest and most horrific really came into its own after the introduction of gunpowder (and more accurate weapons) and before the medical improvements of the crimean war. this is due in part to larger numbers of men on battlefields and sheer destructive capability. While I'm not unfamiliar with the troubles and travaisl of ancient warfare, in many cases, it just got worse. Lastly: Should they have a military line? YES! Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right. Returning to your last sentence there, a couple of points. One, with your lampshade reference, you are making a very direct correlation (and a flippant one at that) to the events of the Holocaust. Two, your choice of words seems to be linking the diredctors and designers at lego with the jewish people, which I'm not so certain is a valid nor viable link. Three, in referencing such things, you might want to be a little less flippant in going about it, as it indicates a great lack of respect on your behalf, which would be unfortunate if that was not what you were indicating. Akkh
languages Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 This would be awsome for my Splinter cell project.....
Kenn Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Should they have a military line? YES! Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right. Where to begin. First off: should they have a military line ? Maybe, becasue there are a number of liberal mothers in the world who buy their children lego but would boycott the moment they saw lego as going the route of war toys. Its one market versus another, and thats something TLG probably weighs very very carefully. As for the second sentece there, you realize that there would be no danger of of slavery or other such atrocity if military force weren't on the side of wrong. While your poin has some merit, so does the opposite side of that equation. In the long run, it comes down that there are some things that are touchy subjects, modern war and the things that go along within are one of them. Whether its because some parents are too busy (or lazy) to teach their children right from wrong, and what the proper application of force means, or becasue violent toys do promote violent behavior in children (I'm advocating neither position), TLG has decided against stepping into that particular public relations nightmare. It's obviously hypocritical. Imperial army VS. Pirates, Knights VS Forestmen, Cowboys VS Indians, Star WARS, Bionicles. their toys are ripe with war with the middle ages being the bloodiest and most horrific. Yes and no, at its core all of those fall in the realm of 'fantasy violence'. Which is to say western culture has romanticized it and sanitized it to the point that though the events and cultures were violent, there is not the baggage of it being real put on such things. This is an issue with Western culture, not an issue with TLG. After all, we aren't watching versions of Star Wars that look like Saving Private Ryan. For many, fantasy violence is all right, but where that line blurs into realisitc violence, a lot of people gt uncomfortable or unhappy with. Also, wars at their bloodiest and most horrific really came into its own after the introduction of gunpowder (and more accurate weapons) and before the medical improvements of the crimean war. this is due in part to larger numbers of men on battlefields and sheer destructive capability. While I'm not unfamiliar with the troubles and travaisl of ancient warfare, in many cases, it just got worse. Lastly: Should they have a military line? YES! Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right. Returning to your last sentence there, a couple of points. One, with your lampshade reference, you are making a very direct correlation (and a flippant one at that) to the events of the Holocaust. Two, your choice of words seems to be linking the diredctors and designers at lego with the jewish people, which I'm not so certain is a valid nor viable link. Three, in referencing such things, you might want to be a little less flippant in going about it, as it indicates a great lack of respect on your behalf, which would be unfortunate if that was not what you were indicating. Akkh As for the second sentece there, you realize that there would be no danger of of slavery or other such atrocity if military force weren't on the side of wrong. While your poin has some merit, so does the opposite side of that equation. Our world is governed by the application of force. In the absence of good, evil takes over. To suggest that if all good men laid down their arms everything would be ok is foolish. all of those fall in the realm of 'fantasy violence'. Which is to say western culture has romanticized it and sanitized it to the point that though the events and cultures were violent, there is not the baggage of it being real put on such things. I know LEGO has used this absurd argument. The crossbows, long bows and broad swords were the weapons of some of earths most horrific wars. At what point will history whitewash it to make it fun that wars were once fought with M16
Akkhraziel Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Our world is governed by the application of force. In the absence of good, evil takes over. To suggest that if all good men laid down their arms everything would be ok is foolish. There are many who would argue that our weorld is governed by economics, which is to say that the bulk of human existence boils down to who gets what. While certainly, application of force can play a part in that, a force centric viewpoint seems to fail to take into account several things and several facets of relationships, unless forcing your friends is something you inherently hold as necessary. As to the latter part of your statment, of course everything would not be okay, but that has little to do with the notions of children and violent toys. Your arguement seems to be "Its a vioelnt world, so what the big deal ?" and the counterarguement to that is "So, they take a stance that may or may not make the world better, but certainly hurts no one and might, given the anti-war sentiments in many parts of the globe, be a wise public relations manuver." It will never be conclusively proven one way or another whether or not violent toys have an effect on children one way or another, but until that time, given the kind of company TLG want to comport itself as, which is to say extremely friendly to small children, their stance is not hurting anything. As to the horrificness of swords and medieval weaponary, as the owner of several, I'm well aware of their destructive capabilites. That mankind has precipitated atrocity upon makind for centuries really isn't at question here. And yes, I'm actually fairly certain in another 25-50 years society may well be densisitzed enough for such things(modern weapon lego sets), but again, at its heart, Lego tries to stick to more innocent play themes. Its part of the company legacy, and part of the corporate image lego wishes to maintain, so that mothers have no qualms buying their products. Remember, the buying public is not a reasonable animal. There are people mout there that would boycott Lego as awhole if the produced a modern military set. And its against such things that Lego probably weighs it options. and if such a stance by the company troubles you so much, you could always choose to take your business elsewhere. As to the last, then my apologies, but your entire post came across as nvery derogatory in tone an measure, text can be a strange medium that way. And yes, I'm more than well aware of the gypsies and other individuals persecuted under the reign of the Thrid Reich. but in the end, I think its more a measure of public relations, market share, and a desire to remain faithful to the founding traditions of TLG that keep it from producing a military line rather than any assumption of core beliefs on the behalf of the owners/designers. Akkh
Capt_Jim Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Best-Lock sells army stuff and they haven't been boycotted yet. Also,
The Middleman Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 My two cents: Nobody's really saying that a military isn't good (or that it isn't bad). LEGO's policy is that it does not produce weapons or war vehicles used in wars up to a hundred years in the past. The only exceptions have been the Sopwith Camel and the Red Baron, which don't really count, as they're decorative pieces rather than playthings. The reason for this, I can only assume, is that WWI and WWII are still fresh in the minds of many Europeans, and seeing a tank - even if American - would not entice them to buy LEGO for their children, and might even turn them away from it. Medieval wars, on the other hand, are much less recent, as I think we can all agree. These have been romanticized for centuries and nobody actually remembers them. This is a very kosher subject for LEGO to work with. Oh, and I agree that the lampshade comment sounds derogatory, and is used in a way that suggests that Europeans are 'ungrateful'. As this is Eurobricks, I don't think that's really a good thing to say. I'm won't delete it, but don't repeat it.
Akkhraziel Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Best-Lock sells army stuff and they haven't been boycotted yet. This seems to be very true, but then again, if people were content with Best Lock's product, I'd doubt so many people woul be clamoring for Lego to make a modern military line. On a slightly more cynical note, I'm not all together certain that if they did do a modern military line, if people would be satisfuied with it. Personally, I'd rather not have spring firing missle launchers on my Lego Apache (or better yet, a KA-50 Werewolf, I love those things), but I'm willing to bet they come with them. Inevitablly, I'm not certain if they did decide to go tht route, if in the end the sets would be all that. Some part of me would rather not have the sets for the reasons given, and TLG to avoid the pr storm that would surround it, than to get lackluster sets. Akkh
Kenn Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 There are many who would argue that our weorld is governed by economics, Money makes trade possible and has nothing to do with governence. You can have all the money in the world and the guy next to you with a gun is going to take it. Your arguement seems to be "Its a vioelnt world, so what the big deal ?" Read what I said and stop reading into it. It will never be conclusively proven one way or another whether or not violent toys have an effect on children one way or another, It's been proven it just that some choose not to acept it. Take away all the toy guns and a kid will pick up a stick and pretend he's got a gun. This however will not turn him into a violent adult. Lego tries to stick to more innocent play themes. Its part of the company legacy, and part of the corporate image lego wishes to maintain, so that mothers have no qualms buying their products. Remember, the buying public is not a reasonable animal. There are people mout there that would boycott Lego as awhole if the produced a modern military set. That's absurd as Mega Bloks has made a fortune on it's militay theams while LEGO's poor managment has turned a gold mine into dust. if such a stance by the company troubles you so much, you could always choose to take your business elsewhere. Again your reading things I never wrote. I merely responded to the question asked by this thread. It doesn't bother me at all as I have no financial intrest in LEGO whatsoever. As a consumer I along with every kid with an imagination will figure out how to make Military models no mater what they put out.
Kenn Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 WWII are still fresh in the minds of many Europeans, and seeing a tank - even if American - would not entice them to buy LEGO for their children, and might even turn them away from it. Funny a cruise through the pages of Brickshelf will show that MOST of the finest military/LEGO models made are comming from European AFOLs. Oh, and I agree that the lampshade comment sounds derogatory, and is used in a way that suggests that Europeans are 'ungrateful'. Don't read into it what's not there, I never said such a thing and I stand by it. If someone chooses to read into it what's not there, that's not my fault.
Hobbes Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Q: Who wants a military theme? A: I don't. Q: Should LEGO start a military line? A: No. The answers in this post solely depict the poster's humble opinion.
Akkhraziel Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Money makes trade possible and has nothing to do with governence. You can have all the money in the world and the guy next to you with a gun is going to take it. This stems from adiscussion about: Our world is governed by the application of force. In the absence of good, evil takes over. To suggest that if all good men laid down their arms everything would be ok is foolish. So perhaps the better question I should ask is that when you say 'world is governed' are you speaking in a strictly politicals sense, or in the broader day-to-day inteactions of individuals, which is to say how one individual and another interact is governed by force? Which is to say, is such a statment limited to a broad political view, or are you stipulating that it governs more personal interactions. This is a request for clarification, so I might better understand the points you presented. It's been proven it just that some choose not to acept it. Take away all the toy guns and a kid will pick up a stick and pretend he's got a gun. This however will not turn him into a violent adult. By 'not proven' I mean that both sides of that argument have data which validate their point, and further, becasue of that data, are extremely reluctant to accept the data the other side presents. Then again, thts more or less bound to happen when trying to study human behavior. That's absurd as Mega Bloks has made a fortune on it's militay theams while LEGO's poor managment has turned a gold mine into dust. I'd be curious to see what the different lines for Megablocks has generated what numbers for them. That they also have lower prices probably doesn't hurt any, either. Again your reading things I never wrote. I merely responded to the question asked by this thread. Thats due in part to some of your statements. You speak of good and evil, which are at best are things dificult for everyone to come to one single definition of. Further, remember, there are some who see guns as evil. I know you undoubtedly disagree with such a sentiment (and please note, I'm not saying that I agree with that statement, either), but just becasue its a view that is foolish or nonsense in your eyes doesn't make that point of view any less real to those who hold them. Additionally, your posts tend to be big on generalizations, while that not necessarily a bad thing, it can make it difficult to get what your point is, hence why I ask for clarification. As aforementioned earlier in this thread, text is an interesting medium for conversation, but it eliminates tone of voice and body language, all of which might make your comments carry very different connotations. And lastly, I'm not trying to change your mind, in many way I haven't really stated what my opinion is, but I enjoy the converstion and this is an interesting topic, with many different points of view, and valid points in those perspectives. It is completely plausible that lego is missing out on a great oppurtunity by not making modern military sets. Its also completely plausible that they are avoiding wht could rapidly become a public relations nightmare. Evidence supports both theories, but it makes for interesting discussion. Cheers, Akkh
The Middleman Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 WWII are still fresh in the minds of many Europeans, and seeing a tank - even if American - would not entice them to buy LEGO for their children, and might even turn them away from it. Funny a cruise through the pages of Brickshelf will show that MOST of the finest military/LEGO models made are comming from European AFOLs. Oh, and I agree that the lampshade comment sounds derogatory, and is used in a way that suggests that Europeans are 'ungrateful'. Don't read into it what's not there, I never said such a thing and I stand by it. If someone chooses to read into it what's not there, that's not my fault. 1) I'm sure there are plenty of European military MOCs that are excellent, but your point is invalid in many ways. First of all, Brickshelf doesn't display a user's nationality, so aside from their usernames, there's really no way to know where they're from unless you know them from another forum. Second, even if EVERY SINGLE MILITARY MOC was European in origin, that would account for only a tiny fraction of a percent of LEGO's European market. You fail to realize that LEGO's intended market is, was, and will remain to be CHILDREN, and that most of these children do not post MOCs online. Finally, these kids' parents are the ones that buy the LEGO for them, not the children themselves, so the kids have very little say in the matter. I assume most adult Europeans don't want to buy toys for their children that remind them of WWII. 2) You never said that Europeans were ungrateful, but you used a tone - if such a thing is possible on the internet - that suggests it. We read what you write in the way that you write it, nothing more. "Unfortunately what they fail to realize is most of them would be a lampshade or a slave if it wasn't for military force on the side of right" definitely indicates that you think of them as either ignorant or ungrateful.
Kenn Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 I'm sure there are plenty of European military MOCs that are excellent, but your point is invalid in many ways. First of all, Brickshelf doesn't display a user's nationality So you haven't spent enough time there to connect Brickshelf ID's with Lugnet/Eurobrick/Bricklink handles. I have. Just because you are not aware of what's what doesn't make my point "invalid" Second, even if EVERY SINGLE MILITARY MOC was European in origin, that would account for only a tiny fraction of a percent of LEGO's European market. You fail to realize that LEGO's intended market is, was, and will remain to be CHILDREN, and that most of these children do not post MOCs online. Finally, these kids' parents are the ones that buy the LEGO for them, not the children I wasn't addressing the market I was responding to the question originaly posed by this thread. Someone else took it that direction but, if you insist the military model has made Mega Bloks. Many other building systems have military theams and are doing quite well. LEGO stays the hypocritical pacifist and continues to struggle. It's fair to extrapolate that if LEGO had a military line it might not make them but they certainly could not do any worse. You never said that Europeans were ungrateful, but you used a tone - if such a thing is possible on the internet Any thing is possible if you choose to read into it what's not there, even the guy with whom you originally agreed took back his words. Just read what's there and try not reading into it what's not.
The Middleman Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 I'm sure there are plenty of European military MOCs that are excellent, but your point is invalid in many ways. First of all, Brickshelf doesn't display a user's nationality So you haven't spent enough time there to connect Brickshelf ID's with Lugnet/Eurobrick/Bricklink handles. I have. Just because you are not aware of what's what doesn't make my point "invalid" Second, even if EVERY SINGLE MILITARY MOC was European in origin, that would account for only a tiny fraction of a percent of LEGO's European market. You fail to realize that LEGO's intended market is, was, and will remain to be CHILDREN, and that most of these children do not post MOCs online. Finally, these kids' parents are the ones that buy the LEGO for them, not the children I wasn't addressing the market I was responding to the question originaly posed by this thread. Someone else took it that direction but, if you insist the military model has made Mega Bloks. Many other building systems have military theams and are doing quite well. LEGO stays the hypocritical pacifist and continues to struggle. It's fair to extrapolate that if LEGO had a military line it might not make them but they certainly could not do any worse. You never said that Europeans were ungrateful, but you used a tone - if such a thing is possible on the internet Any thing is possible if you choose to read into it what's not there, even the guy with whom you originally agreed took back his words. Just read what's there and try not reading into it what's not. 1) You said 'Funny a cruise through the pages of Brickshelf will show', not 'Funny a cruise through Brickshelf and a subsequent search through all major LEGO forums to match up dozens of users will show'. Don't accuse me of not knowing 'what's what' when you yourself made it seem like something simple and obvious to start with. 2) Mega Bloks attracts a cheap market. LEGO has said in the past and continues to call their product THE BEST. They do not have the same policies as clone products. Many parents buy LEGO for their children because they grew up with it, and war machines might turn them off from the entire product, which is entirely possible in Europe, a market that Mega Bloks has barely penetrated, but which makes up over half of LEGO's total revenue. Secondly, LEGO is actually NOT struggling at the moment. They actually did not produce ENOUGH sets to fill the demand at the beginning of the year. They have begun to revert to their old level of quality, and their profits are increasing. Additionally, with the recent sale of LEGOLAND to an investor that will improve the parks, more gain can be expected. Thirdly, LEGO is not hypocritical in any way - it's stuck to its policy. No war products resembling wars from within the past century. What we're talking about are panzers, Apaches, AA guns and the like - if you're going to say that they weave around that by making HUMMERS WITH CATAPULTS and RED HELICOPTERS WITH LIME-GREEN GATLING GUNS, I suggest professional help. 3) I don't see him taking back his words outright, he merely said that it's difficult to tell what a person means when they're talking on the internet, which is true. I agree with that. But just because you didn't say something flat-out doesn't mean you didn't insinuate it. Like Akkh, I'm enjoying this debate. It's one of the better ones.
Kenn Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Our world is governed by the application of force. In the absence of good, evil takes over. To suggest that if all good men laid down their arms everything would be ok is foolish. So perhaps the better question I should ask is that when you say 'world is governed' are you speaking in a strictly politicals sense, or in the broader day-to-day inteactions of individuals, which is to say how one individual and another interact is governed by force? Which is to say, is such a statment limited to a broad political view, or are you stipulating that it governs more personal interactions. This is a request for clarification, so I might better understand the points you presented. It's simple without the application of force there would be no laws, borders, suppression of evil. Should you shoot you neighbor because his dog walks on your lawn? No I'd be curious to see what the different lines for Megablocks has generated what numbers for them. That they also have lower prices probably doesn't hurt any, either. This seems to be very true, but then again, if people were content with Best Lock's product, I'd doubt so many people woul be clamoring for Lego to make a modern military line. Mega Bloks has had huge growth while LEGO corp has done everything it could to wipe it'self out. There's many reasons why the one is succeeding while the other flounders, and I'm not saying military models could save LEGO, however they certainly helped make the competition. Your point about quality is an excellent one, LEGO has a lock on superior quality. That is exactly why fans of the brick wish they would make military models, but just becasue its a view that is foolish or nonsense in your eyes doesn't make that point of view any less real to those who hold them. I stand by the word as I used it. There is a right. There is a wrong. There is good. There is evil. You can disagree but it is a unyealding fact of life and to disagree with it is foolish. your posts tend to be big on generalizations Within generalizations you always find the truth. We can't get in trouble with that unless some one want's to read into it what's not there.
Kenn Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 You said 'Funny a cruise through the pages of Brickshelf will show', not 'Funny a cruise through Brickshelf and a subsequent search through all major LEGO forums to match up dozens of users will show'. Don't accuse me of not knowing 'what's what' when you yourself made it seem like something simple and obvious to start with. Sorry, I thought as admin of this board you were more up on the AFOL community than the average AFOL. I'll try to be clearer next time. Mega Bloks attracts a cheap market. That doesn't make it wrong. Many parents buy LEGO for their children because they grew up with it, and war machines might turn them off from the entire product Key word being might, it hasn't worked that way for the competition though. Europe, a market that Mega Bloks has barely penetrated, but which makes up over half of LEGO's total revenue. Mega bloks is however penatrating it which is why their financals look so rosey. LEGO is actually NOT struggling at the moment. Every financal story that came out when they dumped the parks dissagrees with you and this is so far off the original thread that this is the last I will address it. Thirdly, LEGO is not hypocritical in any way - it's stuck to its policy. No war products resembling wars from within the past century. The policy used to be no violent toys untill they got called on it. You may find arrows and swords warm and fuzy, I choose to call them weapons. I also find that hypocritical. Sorry if you don't. What we're talking about are panzers, Apaches, AA guns and the like - if you're going to say that they weave around that by making HUMMERS WITH CATAPULTS and RED HELICOPTERS WITH LIME-GREEN GATLING GUNS, I suggest professional help. I have no idea where that came from or what it's supposed to mean. It didn't come from anything i said. I don't see him taking back his words outright, he merely said that it's difficult to tell what a person means when they're talking on the internet, which is true. I agree with that. But just because you didn't say something flat-out doesn't mean you didn't insinuate it. sorry you missed it here it is again... As to the last, then my apologies, but your entire post came across as nvery derogatory in tone an measure, text can be a strange medium that way. And yes, I'm more than well aware of the gypsies and other ... You can continue to read into my words whatever you want, that doesn't however mean I said it. You should worry less about what I insinuated and more about throwing insults like... I suggest professional help.
The Middleman Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Quick response to the 'hypocritical issue' - I was under the impression that you meant that they produce war toys, but at the same time won't produce modern war toys. Hence my comments about the helis and the hummers. And that wasn't an insult, it was a joke. By the way, I'm a TFOL, not an AFOL. Regardless, I am up with the LEGO community, but I don't spend time matching names unless I have a specific reason to. I'm going to make a judgment call here and end this discussion. I know several people that harbor harsh attitudes about this argument (although they have so far remained removed from the conversation...), and it's turning far too personal, including my comments. I don't really see anything unsaid being said. Bottom line: LEGO is not making a war theme. Thread locked to prevent further arguments. Contact me with any concerns.
Recommended Posts