 | | Re: Has anyone figured out how to attach the crowns to regular bricks?
|
|
(...) My bad... when I heard transparent crown, I half thought of those pink sparkly roof toppers, dunno why. Noting the way I recall the bottoms of them, it seemed not too far fetched an idea to me that they didn't attach to bricks in the normal (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Has anyone figured out how to attach the crowns to regular bricks?
|
|
Actually, I figured out that this is a standard head piece attachment. It is similar to the red "feathers" used for castle nights and ninja's. Unfortunately, I can only plug it into hats and helmets. I can't figure out any way to get it attached to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Has anyone figured out how to attach the crowns to regular bricks?
|
|
(...) Uhh, LEGO? What's wrong with this question? Remember the system of play. -Tim (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.belville, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Mega-Bloks (Ritvik) is watching
|
|
(...) Speak for yourself. (...) I would only welcome them into this discussion group (LUGNET, outside of O-T.clone..that's what its for - note the off topic) if they are challenging LEGO to make better products. I think LEGO needs the heat turned up (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
|
(...) Maybe - if you promise to return it including the one piece that's missing - a yellow wing front (yeah I know they're not hard to find, I only bought it for parts). 8?) ROSCO (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
