To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.castleOpen lugnet.castle in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Castle / 1036
1035  |  1037
Subject: 
Re: 2000 castle sucks
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.castle
Date: 
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:36:15 GMT
Viewed: 
723 times
  
   I humbly disagree with you Jonathan(1).  I am glad that Castle is back
(in grey).  Some of the parts do suck, but some of the parts are terrific!
Same as any other year.  Personally, I think 91 Castle sucked, but not this
forthcoming year.  Not at all.

1 - Surprise, surprise.
   Have fun!
   John
My Trade/Sale (and links) Page
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/

John DiRienzo
36 Vershire Court
Saint Louis, MO 63135
USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Wilson <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
Newsgroups: lugnet.castle
Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:51 PM
Subject: 2000 castle sucks


From what I know of it 2000 castle sucks overall.
It has several poops like that arch piece. The new castle tower pieces
are also crap. Castle has become juniorised.

--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/



Message is in Reply To:
  2000 castle sucks
 
From what I know of it 2000 castle sucks overall. It has several poops like that arch piece. The new castle tower pieces are also crap. Castle has become juniorised. -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)

17 Messages in This Thread:








Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR