Under the category of "This time we mean business"....
Against my inclination to live and let live, I have to lodge a Grammar Nazi complaint regarding that which is rotten in Denmark. One infraction I could let go. But two in the same story? Them's fightin' words.
The minor error is simply a case of being spell-bound. "Deity Science" rather than Diety Science. Though I imagine there may be some diety thing science comes up with about that.
The "real problem" is the subject matter itself. I would maintain that "Lego" is not a manipulable toy, but rather refers to the medium by which the toys exist and have their being (not to be confused with God). If that is the case, there can be no "legos", anymore than there can be "enamels" when what we're describing are paintings. "Lego" in the sense of a medium, is indeed what the Danish patriots are all worked up about. But as always, symbolic empty action always takes precedent over practical sense. It's for a great cause, you know.
I stand duly humbled, as usual. I had to turn off Grammarly Premium bc I found that it drives all the Curtis out of my writing. While some would applaud that as a net gain, what else do I have to offer? Ergo, the speel chekkur has become disfunkshunalized.
As for the Lego objection, which relies on the enamel simile, is it just barely possible that one of us is over-thinking the articulation of the conceptualization?
Under the category of "This time we mean business"....
Against my inclination to live and let live, I have to lodge a Grammar Nazi complaint regarding that which is rotten in Denmark. One infraction I could let go. But two in the same story? Them's fightin' words.
The minor error is simply a case of being spell-bound. "Deity Science" rather than Diety Science. Though I imagine there may be some diety thing science comes up with about that.
The "real problem" is the subject matter itself. I would maintain that "Lego" is not a manipulable toy, but rather refers to the medium by which the toys exist and have their being (not to be confused with God). If that is the case, there can be no "legos", anymore than there can be "enamels" when what we're describing are paintings. "Lego" in the sense of a medium, is indeed what the Danish patriots are all worked up about. But as always, symbolic empty action always takes precedent over practical sense. It's for a great cause, you know.
I stand duly humbled, as usual. I had to turn off Grammarly Premium bc I found that it drives all the Curtis out of my writing. While some would applaud that as a net gain, what else do I have to offer? Ergo, the speel chekkur has become disfunkshunalized.
As for the Lego objection, which relies on the enamel simile, is it just barely possible that one of us is over-thinking the articulation of the conceptualization?
Overthrowing? Let me think about that...