Subject:
|
Re: Less-Common Colors
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:31:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2043 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:16:50 GMT, "David Eaton" <wpieaton@wpi.edu> wrote:
> In lugnet.faq, Scott Smallbeck writes:
> > In lugnet.faq, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > The historical answer "green and brown (and a few other colors) can be
> > > easily used for military models, and LEGO is non-violent, so green and
> > > brown aren't allowed, except in limited situations".
>
> My question is for Steve... where did the quote come from? And what other
> colors did they mean, I wonder... Maybe Gary should do a 'History of Green and
> Brown Bricks' or 'History of LEGO Weapons' next! :)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was a direct quote. The words in quotes
are my attempt to re-state what I perceived to be the long-term reasoning
from TLG.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Less-Common Colors
|
| (...) I think the answer that Todd suggested (at the last NELUG meeting) was that swords, lances, etc., were added because they're 'historical'... and also you "can't have knights without swords"... as for the cannons, rifles, and pistols, well, I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Sep-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
