Subject:
|
Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 05:26:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1419 times
|
| |
|
|
At 06:13 AM 2/10/99 +0000, Todd wrote:
> > 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.
:) Um, I didn't know there was a thing out there for MOC bricks..
interesting...
> I wouldn't either (no offense to Roy). It would just seem too much like
> cheating and not "real." :-(
Yep, I don't mean any offense either, and I agree with you Todd.
> > Ldraw Consortium for the group name?
>
> Foundation?
Another good idea.. group, lets keep the creative juices flowing..
Ldraw Consortium?
Ldraw Foundation?
Keep Building!!
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
New Lugnet Newsgroup? lugnet.off-topic.timmy.die.die.die ??
LEGO: SP++++c(6973)[ip++++ bt2++++ ex+++ ft+++ sp+++ ut++]
AQ+++(6175)[an+++ as++ hn-- sr--] TO++[ob+ dv+ tc-- tt-- tjr.---] TC++ CA+
PI+ BV--- DU--- HM--- S+ LS>+++ #++++ Hal M+ A+ YB82m
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
