 | | Re: Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts?
|
|
(...) I dunno. Debatable I spose. Limiting yourself to a certain area does admittedly lessen your losses if the theme flops-- which some recent themes have done. And assumably if the theme does really well, you bring it over to the markets it's (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts?
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Gary Tabener wrote: <snip> (...) And whereas I'd probably buy a few Viking sets should they become available, the cost factor in sending both series 'across the pond' and other related issues, such as marketing and such, someone (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts?
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:IDrHBJ.tru@lugnet.com... (...) three (...) reason (...) quarter of (...) it's (...) anxious (...) eager (...) get (...) Europe for (...) this (...) the (...) Attack' (...) fan of (...) In all (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts?
|
|
(...) It's probably the earliest they could fit it into production. But I think it's expected to hear about the sets now. From my understanding, everyone's anxious to get their toys shown at the Toy Fair (in Q1) so that manufacturers are eager to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts?
|
|
Dear Lego, Why do you torture Technic enthusiasts? First, we get a preview of three very cool looking Technic sets (8421, 8420, and 8416), but for some reason the release dates of these sets are clustered together in the 4th quarter of 2005. Then, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: A few requests to enhance the System
|
|
"Brian Davis" <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote in message news:IDHwn5.114G@lugnet.com... (...) stud. Do (...) Indeed we do! Thanks for discovering the error in my description. What I meant to say was that if you place a studless beam next to a studded beam (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 18 March 05 - International Day for LEGO Enthusiasts
|
|
Greetings, Earth-Mortals! Once again this year, I've declared 18th March to be the International Day for LEGO Enthusiasts - IDLE time! Please build responsibly, and call for a ride to a friend's toybox if needed. Thanks! Peace and Long Life, (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.fun.holiday, lugnet.announce, lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A few requests to enhance the System
|
|
(...) I must be missing something here. When I place a studless beam beside a normal Technic beam, the inter-hole spacing is exactly the same - one stud. Do you have the same parts I have? (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A few requests to enhance the System
|
|
(...) are (...) Good question! It's because on the studless beams the holes are right next to each other, whereas on the studded beams the holes have a much larger space in-between. Dave S. (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A few requests to enhance the System
|
|
(...) Tis true. What I was trying to say (I thought I did tho) was that the studless beams are typically odd 'lengths'. Since the holes are (presumably) between the (imaginary) studs, then there would be an even number of holes. In most Technic (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
