 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) Check out Shiri Dori's Scronym Guide: (URL) As for the Bridge issue, I can only say the 2x4 3HBCs (triple-height brick (...) I can't see the composite pieces saving money. If you are already producing the individual pieces in great quantity, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
Mike, I think you letter was 'well spoken'. I have a few points and questions of my own to voice. While it is a good idea to engineer sets made for smaller children to enjoy, they should be able to use pre-existing parts in the sets they buy to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) I agree with almost everything Tim stated. If people are critical of TLC or Lego Direct it's because I don't think that it necessarily follows from anything that we already know that TLC has to continue to plod along like a dinosaur with a 3 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) You are correct. I have to say that I agree with this message on all points and that I too believe that LD is doing all they CAN to satisfy what this growing community wants. Heck, if it weren't for the efforts and communication we have (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) news:G98BDD.92q@lugnet.com... (...) buy (...) deserve. (...) audience. (...) are (...) on (...) that (...) is (...) so (...) too (...) le (...) whole (...) be (...) to (...) that, (...) like (...) would (...) the (...) quality. (...) want (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
