 | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) That may well have been TLC's justification, however I don't buy it. Let's assume we're discussing MOCs using the part, because as it is on the model, with the piston attached, and the problem with binding I also mentioned, I don't see how it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) Surely, if the propeller had been connected to an axle in the normal way, it could have slipped off during play and hit a child in the eye. Now, as it is always connected to the 1x4 beam, it is much safer, even when spinning at high speed. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) You're talking about the part in this view: (URL) a 1988 (!!!) Technic (!!!) set, right? If that's the best part you can come up with, perhaps it's the exception that proves the rule. I don't have a copy of this set, send me yours, let me (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) This is an interesting point. When I was in the 3-4 range, I don't think I even had wooden building blocks. I got my first LEGO Basic set around 4 I guess. By 5/6 I was into the Legoland sets and never looked back. I never had any kind of (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
