 | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) I'm not sold on this idea that there needs to be a transition between Duplo and System that uses POOPs. Who among us was seriously challenged by th 2x4 brick when we were 5 years old? When we were 4 years old? Heck, even 3-years-old? Nope. I'm (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) If one were speculating one could certainly speculate in that direction. Tooling costs do need to be amortized, after all. (...) Makes it easier to do the instructions and easier to assemble. As well as balancing out color loading. (...) Seems (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
Stop fighting! You're both right. (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) I remember when I was a child, I really loved every new specialized part that arrived. I was lucky enough to experience the dawn of classic space at five years old, and I just couldn't get enough of the new parts present in classic space: The (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
Tim, I agree with just about everything you said. The solution, as I see it, is stricter "age-rating" by TLC. POOPS, SPUDS, and SA's (and other acronyms for combining pieces) _DO_ have their place, IHMO, as "transitional elements" for younger (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) 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. I must say that I get tired listening to folks whining about POOPs when it is regularly (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
"Paul Gyugyi" <paul@gyugyi.com> wrote in message news:G9C6Fu.3uB@lugnet.com... (...) Ok, my bad. The Single Purpose Useless...thing kinda did me in there :-) Still, POOPs are evil, nasty and very bad things. (...) Ok. (...) I don't know (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
Hi Tim, I agree with you completely, but I must correct you on the use of a term: SPUDs(*) are single-purpose-usele...decorative pieces. Think "rowboat". The 3-high 2x4 brick is not a SPUD. POOPs are pieces-out-of-other-pieces. I used to call these (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) One thing which needs to be taken into account for the X x Y x Z bricks where Z is greater than one is that I think they were generally introduced for printed bricks. It's far cheaper to print a single brick than have 2 or 3 or 5 separate (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
