Subject:
|
Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:43:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Someone asked about seeding or using "spotter" parts, questioning the
> accuracy and or legitimacy of the explanation given by TLC (which
> explanation, I reiterate, I agree with as being accurate and legitimate. I
> have observed kids in the target age range and the spotter parts help. Heck,
> they help ME(1). This isn't about creativity, it isn't about what MOCs you
> can make, it isn't about product quality, it's about helping follow
> directions) and we seem to have veered off into Standard Product Rant #1. As
> per usual.
>
> As much fun as that is, (nobody likes a good rant as much as I do) it isn't
> what the original post was about.
>
> Does anyone have better data (mine is anecdotal, based on observation of a
> non scientific small sample of children, some of them mine) to confirm or
> refute that spotter parts help the build process?
>
> Or does everyone just want to bash away at TLC as per usual? If so, carry
> on, I guess, but don't expect much useful stuff to come out of the thread
> other than feeling good that we bashed TLC again. As per usual.
>
> Personally, I'm interested in ways to improve the quality of model
> instructions. And that includes using spotter parts. The problem matters to
> me for more than purely curiousity reasons, and it's a very interesting problem.
>
> I am in the middle of developing a set of instructions that have to work for
> multiple model color schemes, because I will be allowing customers to select
> the colors for 6 different portions of a model and have to provide
> instructions that make sense and that are easy to follow no matter what
> colors were chosen. It will be quite a bit more complex (of an instruction
> problem) than what TLC has done so far with their steamer, I think. (spotter
> parts are only tangentially related, of course)
>
> But if y'all would rather bash, feel free, don't let me stop you.
I for one have no problem getting spotter parts if they are tactfully concealed
within the model and don't detract from the design. No bashing from these
quarter. That said, Jake voiced opinions (that were not limited to spotting)
which I heartily disagree with in principle. That's all it is. On Lugnet it
sometimes seems that one risks being branded an insensitive blow-hard for mere
criticism of the company. I appreciate what the company has done with SW and
bulk bricks. I love the company, I spend money on the company's product, but
I'm not going to sing the company fight-song just yet.
james (Larry, these comments weren't directed at you - just leaves in the wind,
so to speak)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) Well spoken, James. Clearly I support LEGO in that I buy their product. If I *truly* wanted to bash TLC, I would simply cease to buy any modern LEGO set... an option that I would find frighteningly easy to excercise. My LEGO budget can easily (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes: <snipped well taken points> (...) Or for sticking up for it when it's unfairly maligned, for that matter. OK, here's a question to the audience, then... which group is a good one for discussing the theory of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) Well said. Let's review: Someone asked about seeding or using "spotter" parts, questioning the accuracy and or legitimacy of the explanation given by TLC (which explanation, I reiterate, I agree with as being accurate and legitimate. I have (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
