Subject:
|
Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:13:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1398 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, tcourtney@avenew.com (Tim Courtney) writes:
> At 04:14 AM 2/10/99 +0000, Roy Earls wrote:
> > I'm not sure how the best way to broach this subject, but to jump head
> > first best.
>
> You did a good job of it, though I don't think you'll like the replies from
> people (personal prediction).
>
> > What I wonder is --- How does everyone feel about this?
>
> I would personally severely disapprove.
So would I (personally).
> Though it could be argued to
> include clone bricks (which your described part would fall under nicely -
> it exists), I would take a position against it.
Me too. In fact, I would take a stronger position against clone bricks than
against purely-MOC bricks. This isn't to suggest that every official TLG
element is a fragrant flower, but IMHO all clone elements are poisonous
weeds, IMHO.
> Ldraw was as far as I
> understand it was intended by James for Lego models. I know that I would
> argue against placing a non-TLG part in an official L-CAD update (or what
> do we call ourselves now?). I guess there is no stopping you from creating
> it, but I personally would not use it.
I wouldn't either (no offense to Roy). It would just seem too much like
cheating and not "real." :-(
> Ldraw Consortium for the group name?
Foundation?
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) You did a good job of it, though I don't think you'll like the replies from people (personal prediction). (...) I would personally severely disapprove. Though it could be argued to include clone bricks (which your described part would fall (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
