 | | | | | |
This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
A dreadful visit to .technic.bionicle gives that there is now days
between the posts...
Hope we did not scare AFOL's away from Lugnet but I must say Yay! to
the fact .technic is almost like it used to be again :)
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I think the reason been the forum site of BZCommunity, all fans have gone
over there instead of Lugnet.. but more are coming as the Nuva arrives in
Aug/Sept. So your not out of the woods yet ;)
Webmaster of www.kanohi-power.com
--
Mike Edwards
Lugnet Member #151
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kanohi-Power - Bionicle Site on the web
http://www.kanohi-power.com
Brickbay shop - Edwards Parts
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=edwards-parts
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
>
> A dreadful visit to .technic.bionicle gives that there is now days
> between the posts...
>
> Hope we did not scare AFOL's away from Lugnet but I must say Yay! to
> the fact .technic is almost like it used to be again :)
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Michael Edwards writes:
> I think the reason been the forum site of BZCommunity, all fans have gone
> over there instead of Lugnet..
...and I thought they were all just busy at school. ;)
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
> but more are coming as the Nuva arrives in
> Aug/Sept. So your not out of the woods yet ;)
>
> Webmaster of www.kanohi-power.com
>
> --
> Mike Edwards
> Lugnet Member #151
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Kanohi-Power - Bionicle Site on the web
> http://www.kanohi-power.com
>
> Brickbay shop - Edwards Parts
> http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=edwards-parts
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> > background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
> >
> > A dreadful visit to .technic.bionicle gives that there is now days
> > between the posts...
> >
> > Hope we did not scare AFOL's away from Lugnet but I must say Yay! to
> > the fact .technic is almost like it used to be again :)
> > /Tobbe
> >
> > http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
GOOD!
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> > background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
>
> GOOD!
>
> Steve
Sorry to have obtruded on your sacrosanct purview. IOW: nice attitude.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> > > background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
> >
> > GOOD!
>
> Sorry to have obtruded on your sacrosanct purview. IOW: nice attitude.
I'm going to have to agree with Kyle on this one. A lot of people here have
been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing. Not just because Lugnet
filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego put it
there. No, many people are personally offended by its very existance. Between
that and the whole "technic sets don't have beams anymore" whining, it seems
everybody thinks Lego can do no right.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> I'm going to have to agree with Kyle on this one. A lot of people here have
> been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing. Not just because Lugnet
> filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego put it
> there. No, many people are personally offended by its very existance. Between
> that and the whole "technic sets don't have beams anymore" whining, it seems
> everybody thinks Lego can do no right.
It is a concern that LEGO seams to be doing so many things wrong (not only
my opinion, but a reasonable deduction based on their recent financial
losses). And I find nothing wrong with people expressing their concerns in
this forum. I event support the right to grip about other people's griping.
Lego was wrong to put Bionicle in with Technic. Technic is a building toy,
and Bionicle is an action figure. As a building toy, Bionicle kind of
stinks. Too many very dedicated parts, too few general purpose ones. But
it is a very playable toy, and the tie in with the web site is very nice.
I like Bionicle. Unfortunately, by placing it under the Technic banner
(along with other poor fits such as Throwbots, Slizers, and RoboRiders), it
appears that LEGO thinks it has fullfilled it's Technic set quota. This is
particularly a problem with the Basic and moderately priced Advanced sets.
Technic builders are concerned because it is becoming ever more difficult to
get the raw materials for our craft. Service packs are being withdrawn,
builder sets haven't appeared for years, there are very few technic elements
available in bulk, and now the Technic sets don't contain any Technic
elements. I think I picked a bad time to get interested in LEGO again.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Every so often, I feel compelled to comment. So excuse me but ...
As an AFOL, what I do with Lego, specifically Technic and Mindstorms parts
are very likely not what kids do. They couldn't - most of them don't own
quite as much of the stuff as the average AFOL does ;)
TLC's main goal in making toys is to appeal to kids. Kid's wants go through
fads. It is important for toy companies to make sure their products match
the current fad. I fully understand that need, even if it doesn't appeal to
me and threatens to cut off my AFOL supply of parts. After all, I suspect
99.9% of Lego ends up in the hands of kids.
So my answer has been to treat new "technic" offerings as a source of supply
of challenging new parts. The larger Bionical sets are packed with them. I'm
still learning how to use them effectively and I'm enjoying doing that.
As for the smaller sets, which in my mind include the whole history of
Throwslizers and 30 piece Bionicles, they are simply raw material. My habit
of taking and modifying Lego parts to suit my needs, much as the Bilund
designers do when they are designing new sets, is frowned upon by many on
Lugnet. But if you hate the sets and parts so much and you don't think they
are "true Technic", then why not get out your Xacto knives, Dremel tools,
power saws and drills or even in extreme cases like mine, a CNC machine,
and make the parts you need!
I'm having great fun with this stuff - even if it's different from what it was!
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Dean certainly has my vote on this Bionicle stuff. (How about a "Burn the
Bionicle at the Beach Bonfire"?)
When the Technic figure was first introduced back in 1986 (the 8600's sets)
it was an interesting idea. One that could spark both interest in function,
form, and fun for the younger Technic crowd (OK so I was 15 then). But as
that idea progressed into that "Lego-Borg" in the '90's, we wound up getting
this Bionicle stuff.
Thought- If Lego continued with the original 8600's but into forms other
than just polar (say "Indiana Jones" stuff like they did with the minifigs)
maybe we'd be seeing more sets along the lines of the 8855 prop plane and
the so forth, not just construction like 8862 or 8460. Yes, I need not be
reminded they did so in many 8200 sets, but do you think they could have
gone further? I think so.
I do not mean to say those sets, like 8862, are not my fancy (love them very
much) but it would allow for more "movie-reality-fiction" (OK, bad name)
based models. Just take a moment and imagine a Technic Sopwith Camel or a
"better" 8280 fire truck?
Adrian E
"Dean Hystad" <dhystad@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GsyJ13.8BL@lugnet.com...
> > I'm going to have to agree with Kyle on this one. A lot of people here • have
> > been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing. Not just because • Lugnet
> > filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego • put it
> > there. No, many people are personally offended by its very existance. • Between
> > that and the whole "technic sets don't have beams anymore" whining, it • seems
> > everybody thinks Lego can do no right.
>
> It is a concern that LEGO seams to be doing so many things wrong (not only
> my opinion, but a reasonable deduction based on their recent financial
> losses). And I find nothing wrong with people expressing their concerns • in
> this forum. I event support the right to grip about other people's • griping.
>
> Lego was wrong to put Bionicle in with Technic. Technic is a building • toy,
> and Bionicle is an action figure. As a building toy, Bionicle kind of
> stinks. Too many very dedicated parts, too few general purpose ones. But
> it is a very playable toy, and the tie in with the web site is very nice.
>
> I like Bionicle. Unfortunately, by placing it under the Technic banner
> (along with other poor fits such as Throwbots, Slizers, and RoboRiders), • it
> appears that LEGO thinks it has fullfilled it's Technic set quota. This • is
> particularly a problem with the Basic and moderately priced Advanced sets.
>
> Technic builders are concerned because it is becoming ever more difficult • to
> get the raw materials for our craft. Service packs are being withdrawn,
> builder sets haven't appeared for years, there are very few technic • elements
> available in bulk, and now the Technic sets don't contain any Technic
> elements. I think I picked a bad time to get interested in LEGO again.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Technic builders are concerned because it is becoming ever more difficult to
> get the raw materials for our craft. Service packs are being withdrawn,
> builder sets haven't appeared for years, there are very few technic elements
> available in bulk, and now the Technic sets don't contain any Technic
> elements. I think I picked a bad time to get interested in LEGO again.
Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out
here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting
http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
Great resource for raw elements.
$0.02
By the way, why doesn't LUGNET just make a BIONICLE category apart from
TECHNIC. This seems obvious to me.
Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Todd Thuma writes:
> Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out
> here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting
> http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
>
> Great resource for raw elements.
Yes, but very expensive. IIRC, when Lego used to sell those accessory packs,
they were about 1/2 as much. Granted it's been a long time since, I don't
think they'd be as much if Lego still sold them.
TJ
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:03:09 GMT, "Todd Thuma" <thumat@gactr.uga.edu>
wrote:
>
> > Technic builders are concerned because it is becoming ever more difficult to
> > get the raw materials for our craft. Service packs are being withdrawn,
> > builder sets haven't appeared for years, there are very few technic elements
> > available in bulk, and now the Technic sets don't contain any Technic
> > elements. I think I picked a bad time to get interested in LEGO again.
>
> Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out
> here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting
> http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
>
> Great resource for raw elements.
If they only would ship _outside_ US I'd be set (and broke)...
> By the way, why doesn't LUGNET just make a BIONICLE category apart from
> TECHNIC. This seems obvious to me.
Bionicle is part of the Technic line of some reason. I would not mind
having the bionicle folks in their own subgroup but they constantly
flooded the technic group aswell. I learned to ignore them and quite
frankly it took a while before noticing they were gone...
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
<snip>
> I would not mind
> having the bionicle folks in their own subgroup but they constantly
> flooded the technic group aswell. I learned to ignore them and quite
> frankly it took a while before noticing they were gone...
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
I am frankly baffled by this observation. When did the Bionicle posts ever
flood the Technic group? My definition of flooding would be scores of posts
in a matter of days. Since the beginning of 2002, there has been a grand
total of 123 Bionicle posts.
It seems like there have been that many posts about 'erroded' axles in the
last 72 hours. ;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> It seems like there have been that many posts about 'erroded' axles in the
> last 72 hours. ;)
And don't forget the very, very meaningful debate about what MOTM should be
called! Think that one got 72 per hour at one point.
Discussion is healthy, its what sets us apart from the apes (or should that
be Rahi?)
William
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:15:39 GMT, "William Howard"
<william@howard-family.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
> > It seems like there have been that many posts about 'erroded' axles in the
> > last 72 hours. ;)
>
> And don't forget the very, very meaningful debate about what MOTM should be
> called! Think that one got 72 per hour at one point.
That was meaningful to me, I got my name.
The useless flame-war if Tim was right or not was a pity though since
both him and I had agreed already. AND PLEASE DON'T BRING THIS
DISCUSSION BACK TO LIFE AGAIN :)))
> Discussion is healthy, its what sets us apart from the apes (or should that
> be Rahi?)
>
> William
>
>
>
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I am frankly baffled by this observation. When did the Bionicle posts ever
> flood the Technic group? My definition of flooding would be scores of posts
> in a matter of days. Since the beginning of 2002, there has been a grand
> total of 123 Bionicle posts.
Did I mention English is my second language? Flood is obviously wrong
word here, but I think I can turn this to my right :)
Imagine the .technic.bionicle group has a wide stream of messages, if
it get's to crowded they will flood .bionicle and the messages will
start appearing in .technic. Hence .technic got "flooded" with
bionicle :)
But looking only at 2002 is wrong here since they florished (sp?) in
atumn 2001 if my mind serves me...
> It seems like there have been that many posts about 'erroded' axles in the
> last 72 hours. ;)
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > I am frankly baffled by this observation. When did the Bionicle posts ever
> > flood the Technic group? My definition of flooding would be scores of posts
> > in a matter of days. Since the beginning of 2002, there has been a grand
> > total of 123 Bionicle posts.
>
> Did I mention English is my second language? Flood is obviously wrong
> word here, but I think I can turn this to my right :)
>
> Imagine the .technic.bionicle group has a wide stream of messages, if
> it get's to crowded they will flood .bionicle and the messages will
> start appearing in .technic. Hence .technic got "flooded" with
> bionicle :)
>
> But looking only at 2002 is wrong here since they florished (sp?) in
> atumn 2001 if my mind serves me...
>
> > It seems like there have been that many posts about 'erroded' axles in the
> > last 72 hours. ;)
>
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
Your english is mighty fine. Just to beat this sub-topic into the ground,
the biggest single Bionicle discussion wasn't about Bionicle dierctly but
about the avatars on Brickshelf. A regrettably polarizing situation that was
resolved nicely by the various admins.
- Kyle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:03:09 GMT, "Todd Thuma" <thumat@gactr.uga.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Technic builders are concerned because it is becoming ever more difficult to
> > > get the raw materials for our craft. Service packs are being withdrawn,
> > > builder sets haven't appeared for years, there are very few technic elements
> > > available in bulk, and now the Technic sets don't contain any Technic
> > > elements. I think I picked a bad time to get interested in LEGO again.
> >
> > Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out
> > here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting
> > http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
> >
> > Great resource for raw elements.
Only problem is they don't have the full range of elements.
Try finding half thickness lift arms for example. Or, my favourite, black
beams, or any colour, but in the size/number I want. For example, I'm
building a crane boom, and need 4 16U beams and 8 10U beams per section. If
I buy the beams pack I get a whole bunch of beams I don't want.
Regards
Gordon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:03:09 GMT, "Todd Thuma" <thumat@gactr.uga.edu>
> wrote:
> > Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out
> > here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting
> > http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
> >
> > Great resource for raw elements.
>
> If they only would ship _outside_ US I'd be set (and broke)...
Find your nearset supplier at http://www.lego.com/dacta/addresses/wheretobuy.asp
(Beware your bank balance!)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > > http://www.pitsco-legodacta.com/
> > >
> > > Great resource for raw elements.
> >
> > If they only would ship _outside_ US I'd be set (and broke)...
>
> Find your nearset supplier at http://www.lego.com/dacta/addresses/wheretobuy.asp
Been there, done that. My Swedish suppliers ships to schools or only
carry big sets not parts :(
> (Beware your bank balance!)
Thanks but it's a little late, say two years or since I got out of my
dark ages cave :)
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> A lot of people here have
> been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing.
Don’t take it too seriously, despite my jest
(http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=7001) I do own quite few of the sets. I’m
happy to give them a place in my little Lego/Technic world.
Anyhow, most of the jibes were aimed at Bionicle-heads rather that
Bionicle-sets. ;)
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Ray Kremer writes:
> > > > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> > > > background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
> > >
> > > GOOD!
> >
> > Sorry to have obtruded on your sacrosanct purview. IOW: nice attitude.
>
> I'm going to have to agree with Kyle on this one. A lot of people here have
> been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing. Not just because Lugnet
> filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego put it
> there. No, many people are personally offended by its very existance. Between
> that and the whole "technic sets don't have beams anymore" whining, it seems
> everybody thinks Lego can do no right.
The reason Bionicle and technic should not be in the same group is because
thir is no cross-fertilisation between the two. Their is also an age gap
between the two products. All that happens is that our respective posts get
in each others way (a problem for newbies when they start up which is a
vulnerable time for keeping people intereseted).
I don't read Bionicle posts and I assume they don't read technic one's all
this for the sake of mirroring Lego's hierachy.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes:
<quotes snipped>
> I don't read Bionicle posts and I assume they don't read technic one's ...
I am here to tell you that your assumption is in error. I read the Technic
posts (the ones that aren't screeds about devolution of parts and the like)
and get much from them.
> ... all this for the sake of mirroring Lego's hierarchy.
That's right. And your point is ... what? That by dint of hating a toy*, you
should enjoy the privilege of defining Lugnet groups? This is the same as if
I said, "I hate those [fill in some random steering part**] let's assign
them to some ghetto somewhere the other side of Duplo.***" Where's the
"friendly" in that?
If you can't integrate the new parts into your play, that's fine. But it is
manifestly uncool to try trash my enthusiasm.
- Kyle
---
* A phenomenon that I will never understand. It's a toy. You play with it,
you don't pitch a fit over the fact that it exists because pitching a fit
ISN'T FUN.
** Which I don't. It's an example not to be taken literally. I wish I didn't
feel I had to explain that.
*** Apologies to the the Duplo-heads. I find big bricks useful. And the
train parts make good ... you get the point. It's all good.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Kyle Beatty writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes:
>
> <quotes snipped>
>
> > I don't read Bionicle posts and I assume they don't read technic one's ...
>
> I am here to tell you that your assumption is in error. I read the Technic
> posts (the ones that aren't screeds about devolution of parts and the like)
> and get much from them.
Well I wasn't expecting 100% absolute conformality wth my word's. You must
be the exception that prove's the rule.
> > ... all this for the sake of mirroring Lego's hierarchy.
>
> That's right. And your point is ... what? That by dint of hating a toy*, you
> should enjoy the privilege of defining Lugnet groups? This is the same as if
> I said, "I hate those [fill in some random steering part**] let's assign
> them to some ghetto somewhere the other side of Duplo.***" Where's the
> "friendly" in that?
>
> If you can't integrate the new parts into your play, that's fine. But it is
> manifestly uncool to try trash my enthusiasm.
Did you actually read my post. I've never trashed your right to enjoy
Bionicle that's an assumption on your part. I don't have to like Bionicle.
My argumets are bionicle is bad for Lego. And their inclusion in our
otherwise pristine group is bad for lugnet.technic. I haven't slagged of any
individual's or interfered with their pastime's, I'm just pro-segregation of
two unconnected discipline's.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Kyle Beatty writes:
Kyle you expletive deleted, You set the FUT to bionicle, now everyone in
Technic will miss my responce, and I'll be open to more tirade's from
bloomin Bionicle's fans.
Grrr
My response for those using e-mail or 'no subgroups' can be found at
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/bionicle/?n=1962
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> My argumets are bionicle is bad for Lego.
This is a complex argument to start with. For Lego the company, Bionicle has
been very, very good. For the proliferation of Lego Technic sets that are big
and fancy, perhaps Bionicle is bad. I could accept the argument that Lego will
produce fewer "real" Technic sets because of Bionicle's success. However, I
would point out that each year still seems to carry a handful of new vehicular
Technic sets, and though I haven't done a rigourous count I think that's about
all Technic every really had was a handful of new vehicular sets each year.
Of course there's also the mob of people who say there hasn't been a "real"
Technic set since studded beams were replaced by non-studded beams. I can
accept that argument too, but the blame for that is nowhere near Bionicle.
I would also like to point out that while the Toa and Bohrok are
indeed very action-figurish, the Rahi monster sets are quite Technic-like.
I think the crux of the matter is that everybody mourns the loss of pre-1990
Technic sets. Yep, they were nice. No argument there. But Lego's moved on since
then, and it's healthier to just accept it and move on rather than to
continuously get worked up about it. Venting your anger at Bionicle doesn't
turn the calendar back.
> And their inclusion in our otherwise pristine group is bad for lugnet.technic.
In a system such a Lugnet, it's probably best to just stay with Lego's
organization lest there be non-stop arguments over what should go where. Should
Bionicle be labeled Technic? Probably not, but take it up with Lego, not
Lugnet.
"Otherwise pristine group"? How elitist of you.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Ray Kremer writes:
> > My argumets are bionicle is bad for Lego.
>
> This is a complex argument to start with. For Lego the company, Bionicle has
> been very, very good. For the proliferation of Lego Technic sets that are big
> and fancy, perhaps Bionicle is bad. I could accept the argument that Lego will
> produce fewer "real" Technic sets because of Bionicle's success. However, I
> would point out that each year still seems to carry a handful of new vehicular
> Technic sets, and though I haven't done a rigourous count I think that's about
> all Technic every really had was a handful of new vehicular sets each year.
> Of course there's also the mob of people who say there hasn't been a "real"
> Technic set since studded beams were replaced by non-studded beams. I can
> accept that argument too, but the blame for that is nowhere near Bionicle.
> I would also like to point out that while the Toa and Bohrok are
> indeed very action-figurish, the Rahi monster sets are quite Technic-like.
Ok I'll adjust my above statement to read Bionicle is bad for Lego Technic.
> I think the crux of the matter is that everybody mourns the loss of pre-1990
> Technic sets. Yep, they were nice. No argument there. But Lego's moved on since
> then, and it's healthier to just accept it and move on rather than to
> continuously get worked up about it. Venting your anger at Bionicle doesn't
> turn the calendar back.
This whole argument reignited because of my one word retorical response to
Tobbe's original post. (And it would be rude not to reply to reply's)
> > And their inclusion in our otherwise pristine group is bad for lugnet.technic.
>
> In a system such a Lugnet, it's probably best to just stay with Lego's
> organization lest there be non-stop arguments over what should go where. Should
> Bionicle be labeled Technic? Probably not, but take it up with Lego, not
> Lugnet.
I wouldn't even try, I'm not all that bothered about the Lego decision. The
printing on the packs doesn't affct me.
>
> "Otherwise pristine group"? How elitist of you.
Thanks :)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > In a system such a Lugnet, it's probably best to just stay with Lego's
> > organization lest there be non-stop arguments over what should go where. Should
> > Bionicle be labeled Technic? Probably not, but take it up with Lego, not
> > Lugnet.
>
> I wouldn't even try, I'm not all that bothered about the Lego decision. The
> printing on the packs doesn't affct me.
Just to add some more fuel to this, everybody HAS noticed that the 'Technic'
logo is conspicuous by it's absence on the new Bionicle Bohrok and Bohrok-Va
products and catalogues, haven't they? ;-) Maybe somebody DID take it up
with Lego?!?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
The Technic Logo is conspiciously absent from _ALL_ 2002 "Technic" sets that we've
seen boxes for thus far (Bionicle, Racers, Star Wars). I mentioned this in a past
thread. IMHO, TLC will eventually phase out the Technic brand completely (just
like they did with the "System" brand).
"James Markham" <j.markham@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Gt0s0o.Fw1@lugnet.com...
> > > In a system such a Lugnet, it's probably best to just stay with Lego's
> > > organization lest there be non-stop arguments over what should go where. Should
> > > Bionicle be labeled Technic? Probably not, but take it up with Lego, not
> > > Lugnet.
> >
> > I wouldn't even try, I'm not all that bothered about the Lego decision. The
> > printing on the packs doesn't affct me.
>
> Just to add some more fuel to this, everybody HAS noticed that the 'Technic'
> logo is conspicuous by it's absence on the new Bionicle Bohrok and Bohrok-Va
> products and catalogues, haven't they? ;-) Maybe somebody DID take it up
> with Lego?!?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Mark Koesel writes:
> The Technic Logo is conspiciously absent from _ALL_ 2002 "Technic" sets that >we've seen boxes for thus far (Bionicle, Racers, Star Wars). I mentioned this
> in a past thread. IMHO, TLC will eventually phase out the Technic brand
> completely (just like they did with the "System" brand).
And a "Dark Age" will begin for many :<
Ron
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> The reason Bionicle and technic should not be in the same group is because
> thir is no cross-fertilisation between the two. Their is also an age gap
> between the two products. All that happens is that our respective posts get
> in each others way (a problem for newbies when they start up which is a
> vulnerable time for keeping people intereseted).
I'd have to say lugnet.build.mecha is the missing piece between
technic and bionicle and quite frankly I find the Mechas utterly cool!
I'm even building my own right now. But it's still a long way to
bionicle and technic. Mecha seems to be in the middle.
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Ray Kremer writes:
> Not just because Lugnet
> filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego put it
> there. No, many people are personally offended by its very existance.
That the two groups are combined is a Lugnet issue. The fact we hate
Bionicle is a Lego issue, their two seperate and distinct arguments.
The easy test that we're right is that if the two groups had split, no one
would bother to argue that they should be re-combined.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:52:33 GMT, "Kyle Beatty"
<carbunicle@appleogue.net> wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes:
> > In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> > > background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
> >
> > GOOD!
> >
> > Steve
>
> Sorry to have obtruded on your sacrosanct purview. IOW: nice attitude.
Apology accepted ;)
And thanks for bringing another three words to my poor vocabulary! :)
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I personally think the objections to Bionicle here is the storyline side,
not the building side. The storyline just has little interest in those of
us who are not into the fantasy aspect of LEGO. I have to admit having the
same feeling reading some of the other groups, like castle, from time to
time.
But mechanically, the Bionicle and related toys are interesting. In
particular, I noticed (I have 3 boys, and Bionicles are very popular) that
the new ball-like things have a 3-long gray "free rotation" pin. That is
something that could be really useful. They also have some body pieces and
gear-ended arms that are very interesting; they are of the new "combo"
spur-and-bevel type.
At the same time, and worthy of discussion here, some of the parts are just
plain "done wrong". The "hand" pieces have an axle molded out of them at an
odd place. It would have been so much more useful if it just had an axle
hole there. And the prevalence of stiff ball joints is clearly for "action
figure" type use, rather than serious ball-and-socket joints that I would
rather have. But the point is that I think this is worthy of discussion in
this newsgroup.
So don't knock the mechanical aspects of Bionicle. It is making money for
LEGO, and it is getting lots of LEGO designer time as a result. Maybe that
is shortening the list for serious technic, but we have always been subject
to what will sell.
From what I have seen, the best Technic AFOL designers use everything they
can get. Here is a challenge: Build the best version of one of these
folding-ball dudes from "regular" technic.
--Jack Gregory
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Jack Gregory writes:
> ...Here is a challenge: Build the best version of one of these
> folding-ball dudes from "regular" technic.
Now that would be something! How about an Expert Builder version of Bionicle?
LOL- a challenge indeed.
TJ
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Expert Builder version of Bionicle?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
William
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, William Howard writes:
> > Expert Builder version of Bionicle?
> Isn't that an oxymoron?
>
> William
It seems that William has taken up the challenge to put his parts where his
mouth is.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> It seems that William has taken up the challenge to put his parts where • his
> mouth is.
Nah! I like the Bionicle bits - lovely colours, great parts, love the ball
and socket stuff, but the only thing you (may) be seeing from me are
pneumatic walkers using the lift arm with ball parts as legs and other such
creatures.
William
Oh yes, and "oxymoron" doesn't mean "I accept the challenge" - you've got a
very strange dictionary!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, William Howard writes:
> > It seems that William has taken up the challenge to put his parts where • his
> > mouth is.
>
> Nah! I like the Bionicle bits - lovely colours, great parts, love the ball
> and socket stuff, but the only thing you (may) be seeing from me are
> pneumatic walkers using the lift arm with ball parts as legs and other such
> creatures.
>
> William
>
> Oh yes, and "oxymoron" doesn't mean "I accept the challenge" - you've got a
> very strange dictionary!
Stipulated! I thought the fact of your response to the challenge was
acceptance enough. :) I'm thinking of giving it a go myself, but I'm afraid
the existence of such a massively recursive Technic model may open a rift in
the time/space continuum.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<<snip>>
> From what I have seen, the best Technic AFOL designers use everything they
> can get. Here is a challenge: Build the best version of one of these
> folding-ball dudes from "regular" technic.
In the same scale or can I upsize things a bit?
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Do what you can. I think, however, that making one the same size, to fit in
the same package, using parts that you approve of as "real technic" is not
only possible, but would be a good way to show LEGO how it "should have
been".
--Jack Gregory
Tobbe Arnesson <tnt@arnesson.nu> wrote in message
news:3c97264d.1283205@lugnet.com...
> <<snip>>
>
> > From what I have seen, the best Technic AFOL designers use everything • they
> > can get. Here is a challenge: Build the best version of one of these
> > folding-ball dudes from "regular" technic.
>
> In the same scale or can I upsize things a bit?
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the background Bi*nicle noise is gone? A dreadful visit to .technic.bionicle gives that there is now days between the posts...
I agree with Mike Edwards that most of the traffic has moved over to
BZCommunity.com. And why wouldn't it? It seems like the very mention of
Bionicle here on LUGNET prompts overkill threads like this. :) I manage
online communities for a living (believe it or not, they pay me for that...
go figure), and it only makes sense that the conversation goes where it is
most welcome. Not to mention that BZCommunity seems to have a more
user-friendly interface common with most message boards found today, which
is helpful for new fans. The admin over there has found a great need in the
LEGO community and filled it nicely.
Am I defending Bionicle? Not really. I hate Jack Stone and mass
juniorization like the rest of you. I also scratch my head at most of the
decisions that LEGO has made of late with their product mix. (Why is all
the good stuff with LEGO Direct?). Bionicle is not LEGO as we have mostly
known it, and that worries me a little. But I'm also a guy, and guys dig
robots. (My assumption, of course, based on my 80's childhood fascination
with Transformers). I can say that I never had much of an interest in
mecha, or even Technic before Bionicle rolled around, and now I find myself
dabbling in both. I agree that there needs to be more products out there
from Lego to "transition" the folks snared by Bionicle into the more
traditional product lines. It's frustrating not to see that.
But let's try to be an open community here, and not shoot down the interests
of others. I'm not saying you have to like Bionicle. I know that's not
going to happen. But give it some space, and encourage those that are drawn
in by it. That's why LUGNET has sections, to cater to your interest. (And
also why I don't hang around in .duplo or something like that).
Bionicle talk is not "noise," at least if you consider it within the context
of the greater LUGNET plan to "help people share ideas by nurturing the
development and exchange of building concepts" and "help people share
information about LEGO products and LEGO-related resources."
Thanks for hearing me out, and have a great day!
- Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> This is somewhat off-topic but has anyone else noticed that the
> background Bi*nicle noise is gone?
>
> A dreadful visit to .technic.bionicle gives that there is now days
> between the posts...
>
> Hope we did not scare AFOL's away from Lugnet but I must say Yay! to
> the fact .technic is almost like it used to be again :)
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
All right! Haven't you had enough of that bionicle noise, echoeing in the
background of .technic?! I sure have.
To tell you the truth though, I absolutely hate bionicle.
Why?
Here's a few of my reasons as to why Bionicle is the bane of bricks...
(1) Over-done specialty parts that have not pareticular use outside
of poorly done meaningless abstract sculptures.
(2) Terribly poor storyline. Now come on, how would "sacred mechanical
robot avatars from underground" come to find their "ultra power masks"
and save the world from some unpronouncable indian name ripoff chunks
of technic apparatus.
(3) Bionicle propaganda.
*you are now watching BTV, as the Rahi's approach the sand dunes of
Amrezalleplainsmountainplace, the bionicles are in trouble of sudden nuclear
annihilation. Quick! Pull out your wallets and run to TOyZ R us and
ourchase everything bionicle related to save the Toas! YOU are our only hope.
*end BTV commercial, and cool music*\
(4) Transformer ripoff!
Well, they're not exactly transformers, or gundam wing, but, they are
definitely weapons of destruction against your hard earned cash. As they
sit there idly on the lone shelves of Toyz R us, I can almost hear them
calling out, BUY me or ELSE, you will face the consequences of having to
sit there, watching your friends play with ehese meaningless action figure
ripoffs, while you don't join in on the fun!
Anyway, If you have a problem or two with my opinion, or you agree :)
feel free to email me here.
Pyrokid17@hotmail.com
Just my two brickz
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet member No. 1112
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I can't really disagree with your points.
> (1) Over-done specialty parts
True enough.
> (2) Terribly poor storyline.
That's subjective, but it certainly is oversimplified kiddie-cartoon quality.
> (3) Bionicle propaganda.
You probably just wish they'd spend that much effort promoting the other sets.
It does make you wonder how successful Bionicle would have been without the
marketing blitz, standing on its own merits.
> (4) Transformer ripoff!
Yep. Give 'em what they want...
> Bionicle is the bane of bricks...
That's what the problem really is. Lego has abandoned bricks. Bionicle is just
a convenient scapegoat. Like fans of a canceled TV series, everybody is
shouting "Give our bricks back! We like bricks!" Lego isn't the first company
and it won't be the last to veer off into something rather different than the
once successful product line they started with. Are brick good? Sure. Should
Lego put more effort and promotional money into bricks rather than take the
easy way out with action figures and licensed stuff? Sure. Do the higher-ups at
Lego think they're making more money by doing Bionicle instead of bricks? You
betcha.
Remember, Lego has reasons for everything it does. Well, one reason anyway. To
make money. Are their efforts misguided? Not for me to judge. People here think
so, anyway. The truly unfortunate thing is that you bricks-and-only-bricks fans
don't have any recourse other than to not buy Bionicle and then complain about
it here, which you're already doing with presumably no effect.
| | | | | | |
