Why was the Lego bible post deleted?

January 11, 2002 11:25 AM

There was a link earlier to the entire bible created in legos. For some reason this was deleted. It was not blasphemous in any way and actually sorta cute. Anyone know why?
posted by statusquo to MetaFilter-Related at 11:25 AM (21 comments total)

cuz it was a double, possibly triple post.
posted by starvingartist at 11:28 AM on January 11, 2002

ahh, ok thanks.
posted by statusquo at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2002

You'll find that we have no problems with blasphemy here.
posted by ColdChef at 12:18 PM on January 11, 2002

blasphemy r0x0r5!
posted by jpoulos at 1:05 PM on January 11, 2002

The original post is here.
posted by arco at 1:50 PM on January 11, 2002

no no, the bible was created in logos heh heh... sorry.
posted by mokey at 4:26 PM on January 11, 2002

Why is it that the plural of 'lego' in the US is the clumsy 'legos' whereas in Europe, it's just called 'lego'?
posted by wackybrit at 8:43 PM on January 11, 2002

Wackytbrit, I think it's because in Europe we enjoy confusing Lego with legover, as this classic Simon Hoggart article proves...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:04 AM on January 12, 2002

What's "clumsy" about it? I'm pretty sure I've seen one or two other plurals formed by adding -s.
posted by rodii at 5:45 PM on January 12, 2002

The clumsy part is that lego is a ubiquitous medium, not a plurality of parts. It would be like calling collective water molecules "waters". This is probably a British viewpoint.
posted by walrus at 4:50 AM on January 13, 2002

I'm American -- born and bred -- and I also treat "Lego" as a word for a substance. (Thusly, I would say "Lego is cool," not, "Legos are cool".)

I dunno how that happened to me, though; and it always irks me when people say "Legos", too. Anyway, I'm inclined this isn't just a British viewpoint, but, in fact, a Universal Truth (though you Brits do seem to be right about something, for once!). ;)
posted by mattpfeff at 6:51 AM on January 13, 2002

I am also in the Lego as plural camp.
It's important to me that you all know that.
posted by dong_resin at 9:20 AM on January 13, 2002

I agree with dong_resin.
It's important to me that you all know that.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:25 AM on January 13, 2002

But Crash, you're a parent. When you're a parent, the ability to make a distinction between "OW!! PICK UP THE DAMN LEGOS!!!" and "OW!! PICK UP THE DAMN LEGO!!!" is crucial, isn't it?
posted by rodii at 10:54 AM on January 13, 2002

Rodii's got you there. Semantics with kids is everything.
posted by dong_resin at 11:03 AM on January 13, 2002

The New Oxford Dictionary of English(1st edition, 1998, p.1053)says lego is a mass noun and defines it as such: "a construction toy consisting of interlocking plastic building blocks".

The rest, that it comes from the Danish leg godt , meaning "play well", from lege (to play), I expect you all knew already. ;)

So what's the prevailing opinion on the plurals of Kleenex, Tampax, Xerox and other difficult proprietary names?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:56 AM on January 13, 2002

'Kleenex tissues', 'Tampax tampons', and 'Xerox copiers', according to the trademark holders. ;)
posted by darukaru at 12:00 PM on January 13, 2002

Y'all really say "I walked into the room and there was lego everywhere"? This surprises me. How do you refer to just one piece? "Lego block"? "Lego unit"? "hapax legomenon"?
posted by rodii at 12:41 PM on January 13, 2002

Piece? Bit?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:43 PM on January 13, 2002

'Kleenex tissues', 'Tampax tampons', and 'Xerox copiers', according to the trademark holders. ;)

darukaru, you've reminded me that my first childhood introduction to the strange and ridiculous world of trademark protection was when I read the bit of the Lego packaging reminding me to refer to them as "Lego(r) colored building bricks". I take it I'm not alone?
posted by moss at 1:13 PM on January 13, 2002

The singular is "lego brick".
posted by walrus at 4:27 AM on January 14, 2002