To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.dear-legoOpen lugnet.dear-lego in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Dear LEGO / 2965
2964  |  2966
Subject: 
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:28:45 GMT
Viewed: 
619 times
  
Stop fighting! You're both right.

In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim Courtney writes:
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A99D1EF.5BDE2965@mindspring.com...
Tim Courtney wrote:
I don't know figures...but POOPs are really a waste of money, especially • when
molds of their component parts already exist and have been in use for years.

I'll continue to disagree, and I'll happily take those classic space
printed 1x6x5 bricks off the hands of anyone who feels POOPs should
never exist.

Fine, if you're going to be picky about my statement, I'll revise it.  Certain
poops are a waste of money, and have no business existing.  Eg...2x4x3 brick,
speed bump with 2x4x2 protrusions on it (from City Center bridge set) etc.

That statement is too strongly worded.

I can come up with a justification for the existance of any part you care to
name, and an example of a model that would be weaker if it had to use the
composite parts instead.

That said, when doing a cost benefit analysis I tend to think that I would
have rather seen the molding money spent elsewhere for many of the parts
even if I CAN justify them.

I'm sorry I committed the grave offense of confusing SPUDs and POOPs, I wonder
if I'll ever be forgiven.

Keep wondering! I know I can't keep them straight. We may be overacronyming
for the sake of humor/cuteness/insularity.

++Lar



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
 
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G9DnBx.E2y@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) I bring to your attention the 1-piece axle/propeller in 8855. I can see *absolutely no justification* for that part. TLC could easily have (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
 
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A99D1EF.5BDE29...ing.com... (...) when (...) Fine, if you're going to be picky about my statement, I'll revise it. Certain poops are a waste of money, and have no business existing. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)

37 Messages in This Thread:
















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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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