|
|
 | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) :) Um, I didn't know there was a thing out there for MOC bricks.. interesting... (...) Yep, I don't mean any offense either, and I agree with you Todd. (...) Another good idea.. group, lets keep the creative juices flowing.. Ldraw Consortium? (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) I think it would be great -- I don't know of any existing restrictions other than the possibility that no one has published their efforts in this regard. I would be more receptive to other brand-name parts than to mangled pieces, however -- (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) So would I (personally). (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
| (...) The ml isn't currently gatewayed with the ng. A gateway could always be established, however, if the need arose. (...) It is (or at least was a few minutes ago) when you sent out your other message. --Todd (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
