 | | | | | |
Hi all,
Just a quick off-topic for those with an heretical bent:
The largely MB MOC HES Valhalla (a 1940s Escort Carrier) has her own page
over at Port Block Yards
(http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/007.htm), all welcome :-)
Careful with your replies (to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Very cool model! I had my misgivings when I saw it had MB, but you
certainly did well with it.
I'll tell you... I just don't get people. You post a cool MOC like this one
and no one responds. But if you mispell a word or say something negative
about JarJar Binks, you get a flood of response. I don't get it.
Felix
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ignore that last post. The thread looks screwy so I didn't see all of the
replies. I'm coming off a sugar high so I'm too cynical.
Felix
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> The largely MB MOC HES Valhalla (a 1940s Escort Carrier) has her own page
> over at Port Block Yards
> (http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/007.htm), all welcome :-)
>
> Careful with your replies (to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands ;-)
That reminds me--what's the proper group in which to post pictures of
modern day or modern day-ish ships? General? Build?
By the way, fantastic Carrier, but you already know what I think!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
>
> > The largely MB MOC HES Valhalla (a 1940s Escort Carrier) has her own page
> > over at Port Block Yards
> > (http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/007.htm), all welcome :-)
> >
> > Careful with your replies (to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands ;-)
>
> That reminds me--what's the proper group in which to post pictures of
> modern day or modern day-ish ships? General? Build?
Some people have used .boats. .general or .build would give you a wider
audience. .town can also be appropriate. Most of us here in .pirates are
appreciative of all types of ships, so it is sort of ok to post here.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.pirates, Frank Filz writes:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> >
> > > The largely MB MOC HES Valhalla (a 1940s Escort Carrier) has her own page
> > > over at Port Block Yards
> > > (http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/007.htm), all welcome :-)
> > >
> > > Careful with your replies (to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands ;-)
> >
> > That reminds me--what's the proper group in which to post pictures of
> > modern day or modern day-ish ships? General? Build?
>
> Some people have used .boats. .general or .build would give you a wider
> audience. .town can also be appropriate. Most of us here in .pirates are
> appreciative of all types of ships, so it is sort of ok to post here.
Lord knows, I do it all the friggin' time. I usually go to .boats,
.build, and .pirates--FUT usually to build or to pirates. If it's
a huuuuuuge tract of web, you can probably safely toss .general in
there (but yank it from the followups).
Of course, if I'm just being a netiquette dolt, then I'm wrong. :)
best
LFB (back from MA tomorrow)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I've not had my internet access for most of the weekend;
I just got it back (no explanation, it's just back...) :-P
Anyway...
This is something that has been bothering me (to a small degree)
for a while now.
I would say that ".general" would be a good default newsgroup
for such, or ".build"; one of the two should be the "follow-up" group.
I would say that ".boats" and ".pirates" would be OK
for the _initial_ post, but I really don't want to see the follow-up posts
for industrial-age warships (1850s+) in ".pirates".
I like modern ships in Lego just fine (I admore the skill it takes
to do these as much as I admire the skill in building any other genre
in Lego)... But I do _not_ want to see them in the same "waters"
(if you will) as the more traditional pirate ships (i.e., "Age of Sail"
vessels, circa 1600s-1700s).
Wooden hulls, cutlasses, and black powder do _not_ have a chance
against ironclads, Maxim (or Gatling) guns, and smokeless powder. ;-)
Also, you do _not_ see these in the same literature or movies, do you?
;-) I mean, really, what chance would Captain Blood (Errol Flynn) have
against the Nazis and the Guns of Navarronne? ;-)
Let's please be consistent with our shared fantasies. ;-)
...Well, OK, I'll make a _small_ exception in the case of Captain Nemo
and the Nautilus, but that's it. ;-)
But that's just my preference. PLEASE do not consider this post
a "flame" or a declaration of hostilities. It's just my opinion.
Thanks,
Franklin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Franklin W. Cain" wrote:
>
> I've not had my internet access for most of the weekend;
> I just got it back (no explanation, it's just back...) :-P
What'd you do, accidentally format your hard drive or some other such
embarrassing misteak? You must not be paying the great Lar enough
homage...
> Anyway...
>
> This is something that has been bothering me (to a small degree)
> for a while now.
>
> I would say that ".general" would be a good default newsgroup
> for such, or ".build"; one of the two should be the "follow-up" group.
> I would say that ".boats" and ".pirates" would be OK
> for the _initial_ post, but I really don't want to see the follow-up posts
> for industrial-age warships (1850s+) in ".pirates".
I think it's a tricky line. Richard Parson's modern and futuristic
creations are all part of his Port Block story line which to me is very
piraty. I also think that .pirates is where the folks who are most
deeply into naval history hang out. If .pirates had an overwhelming post
volume, I would probably have a different opinion, but I for one want to
see Richard's and Lindsay's posts to stay here (in fact, I got somewhat
annoyed one time when Lindsay did direct the discussion out to .boats -
it made it annoying to follow in the news reader).
Now someone just showing off their latest W.W.II carrier or whatever may
not belong here.
> Wooden hulls, cutlasses, and black powder do _not_ have a chance
> against ironclads, Maxim (or Gatling) guns, and smokeless powder. ;-)
> Also, you do _not_ see these in the same literature or movies, do you?
> ;-) I mean, really, what chance would Captain Blood (Errol Flynn) have
> against the Nazis and the Guns of Navarronne? ;-)
Actually he might have done just dandy... I'm not sure how a tall ship
shows up on radar, but it might be a pretty stealthy way to approach a
shore installation like that.
Just my little opinion.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick off-topic for those with an heretical bent:
>
> The largely MB MOC HES Valhalla (a 1940s Escort Carrier) has her own page
> over at Port Block Yards
> (http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/007.htm), all welcome :-)
Really stunning! At first I was amazed at the scale of the ship, and then I
remembered that MB sets are so full of bricks that they feel like cinder blocks.
That beauty almost makes me want to rush out and buy the Kitty Hawk (I say
almost...I was fortunately reminded of the lesser quality of MB's last week when
I toyed with the wretched things for an hour.) Great Work!
james
| | | | | | |
