Subject:
|
Re: Action Toys
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:19:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
606 times
|
| |
|
|
blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> But please let building toys be building toys.
(Following up on lugnet.build because it seems more suitable.)
I don't mean to be ignorant or arrogant, but I see a lot of people who
complains about the lack of "buildability" in the various LEGO System
lines. I don't get it. I mean, if people wanted to build, why did they
get the Town Jr. sets, say, in the first place? Why not get the Basic
sets instead? As far as I can see, they have a very nice selection of
pieces, at a fair price.
As I said, I don't mean to be rude, but I think people should get the
"building packs" and build what they want to rather than complain about
the lack of houses in the Town Jr. line, say, or the general lack of
basic bricks in the System lines.
Anybody want to comment on this, please feel free.
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Action Toys
|
| (...) Interestingly put. I find that now I'm using Town Jr. stuff to almost take the place of Freestyle buckets. The pieces have a matching color scheme which is something that Freestyle buckets rarely did. Don't get me wrong though: the Jr. designs (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.build)
| | | Re: Action Toys
|
| (...) For me this issue is mainly about giving gifts to children. If *I* am looking for parts for a MOC I will probably never leave the realm of technic. If I am, on the other hand, looking for a gift for a younger child I would like (and in the (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
