Subject:
|
Re: Are custom made parts LEGO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:02:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
247 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > For a big company like Ritvik, it's clear, LEGO views them as a competitor and
> > actively competes against them and takes legal action to suppress their cloning
> > whenever it sees an opportunity to do so. Hence MB discussion pretty clearly
> > belongs in off-topic.clone
>
> Interesting that you truncated the group's title, and not a bad truncation at
> that!
It was a mistake, with no overt or covert subtheme to the truncation that I am
aware of. Apologies for any confusion or false inferences drawn.
> IMO formal clone *brands* should be generally confined to
> ot.clone-brands, but one-shot modifications are an artistic creation of their
> own and I agree with you that they deserve their own group. Hmm... But what
> about modified clone elements?
I truly hadn't thought about it. That may be too compartmentalised even for me.
> Even larger production runs of custom LEGO-style elements would probably qualify
> more as complements to the original brand rather than competitors. To my
> knowledge, no competitor brand officially markets its products "for supplemental
> use with LEGO."
Yes. However, there IS a brand of parts that interconnects K'Nex and LEGO which
is so labeled, I think. I have a bag of them somewhere which I got on a lark.
(after seeing them mentioned here I think) I've never used them in anything
really other than to check out that they do what they say. (because I'm a purist
myself... I'll use stickers, cut tubing and string, and use fan created customs
but that's about it) The name, unfortunately, escapes me... (rummages...
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=7556 Sploids(r) is the name)
> The distinction may be that formal clone brands admit
> compatibility but basically seem to treat their products as self-contained
> brands distinct from LEGO itself.
>
> > Hence, I think custom parts discussion belongs in the new group:
> > "lugnet.parts.custom"
>
> That sounds like a great idea. For the uber-compartmentalized, I might even
> propose lugnet.parts.custom.original and lugnet.parts.custom.modified, or
> something like that.
lugnet.parts.modified has already been proposed. I think Rob "Mr. ModBoy"
Hendrix threatened to mutilate a part a day till he got his way, but since we
*know* he would do that anyway, I suspect the threat wasn't taken seriously.
It's still a good idea though, in my view.
> > Until then, it may make sense to discuss them in their theme specific groups as
> > has happened already with Ben's BBB wheels and Jeff's Little Armory space and
> > castle stuff.
>
> That's a good suggestion, too. Since these custom parts are identifiably
> theme-specific, it makes sense to give them at least an initial mention in the
> relevant sub-group, even if the FUT is set to lugnet.parts.custom
Yes.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are custom made parts LEGO?
|
| (...) even (...) or (...) we (...) seriously. (...) "Day 42: Today I beheaded a Jar-Jar in hopes that my cries will finally be heard at that wretched establishment called Lugnet. It's finally becoming clear to me that I should move onto larger and (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are custom made parts LEGO?
|
| (...) Interesting that you truncated the group's title, and not a bad truncation at that! IMO formal clone *brands* should be generally confined to ot.clone-brands, but one-shot modifications are an artistic creation of their own and I agree with (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
