 | | Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
This is an attempt to move this thread over to where IU meant to post it in the first place. I see it has come up (again) in another thread that the LEGO minifigs have no homes. I think it is long past time to put this whole question to rest. Where (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) themselves. > (...) Okay, this would be official, then. Minifig DO relieve themselves, but perhaps only due to some motion which occurs only on trains. In normal activity, they do not. (...) themselves. Now, (...) but we (...) warriors, (...) (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
---...--- (...) Wait, wait, not necessarily. It might be one of those mysterious things, like the puzzle with the twelve elves...you move the 3 pieces around, swapping heads, bodies, and legs, and suddenly, you have thirteen....perhaps this is how (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
Speculation on minifig reproduction: In the minifig world, there are adult and child figures (of the same size). There are also miscellaneous minifig pieces floating around in the ether (i.e. various boxes, bins, etc). Like all particles, these (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
I have never provided facilities for minifigures to relieve themselves in my cities, and i've never heard any complaints from the population! My latest city has survived for several months now, so I can assume: - Minifigs do not need to relieve (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
In lugnet.general, Robert M. Dye writes: <snipper> (...) Nope, just some average AFOL speculations that have been floating around... (In the ether, as Brad says :) -Shiri (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
Yes - Apparently, religion is more exciting than LEGO! Shiri Dori <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fr368H.BCE@lugnet.com... (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
In lugnet.general, Brad Hamilton writes: <snip interesting reproduction speculation> (...) Giants, or gods... Some say the minifigs tend to think that when a hand comes and moves them around, that's the Hand Of God (often referred to as HOG). I hope (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) No, they die. Even, remaining of their corpses can be found in archeological research sites, both underground and under sea..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) The same kind of thing (similar actually) started a religious debate once..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
I think their reproduction is by parting. Take legs of one, then torso of another and head from some other, and mix and match..ohh..but..there are still same number of minifigs around ??? :-) Selçuk (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Robert M. Dye (<Fr358o.1xJ@lugnet.com>) wrote at 14:16:39 (...) Ah, but given that the pizzas are LEGO pieces, perhaps they're just collecting LEGO, like the rest of us :-) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) As for other themes...the Pirates probably just go over the railing. The castle guys have chamberpots, the Adventuters now use the Golden Bedpan Of The Gods (no *wonder* they were so desperate to find it!), and the Space guys probably have (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) OK as a professed LEGO Archeologist, and sometimes LEGO Anthropologist, LEGO... minifigs first showed up on the planet several decades ago. They were a limbless species (known by their Latin name of Minifigicus Stifficanus) that first evolved (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I forgot to mention that there are those LEGO creationists who don't believe that LEGO Minifigs evolved. They will have you believing that LEGO just miraculously showed up on the planet via divine intervention. Don't be fooled by these (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) There is also evidence in the Brickshelf Archives that the two species were for a short time co-inhabitants. Why Stiffcanus died out is unkown to me. More reasearch is needed on the follwing types : Minfigicus (Animus?) - A cross breed with (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Lest we forget that recent dreaded mutant subspecies: Minifigicus Timmycanus! Gary Istok (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I thought Timmycanus was some sort of a disease... Minifigs who suffer from Timmycanus have wide open eyes and have to wear T-shirts with "T" on it so they are easily recognised (so other minifigs can avoid them). -Frank (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) A medieval version of Timmycanus appears in the new castle set 4806. He has the tell tale freckles but has his eyes are closed. Maybe he doesn't want to see into the future! He also has his eyebrows joined together, a sign of madness? Allan J (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) His eyes aren't closed, they're wide open- and silver, like all the Moo Men/Bull Men/Insane Catapult Engineers. eric (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) LEGO... (...) limbless (...) evolved (...) and (...) There is evidence that Minifigicus Erectus is a subspecies of Maxifigius Omnipedus (sets 268, 5233, etc.) It appears that the two coexisted for a short time before MO died out. Some think (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Minifigicus (...) prolific, (...) short (...) evolved (...) different species. I think that a species classification is sufficient: Minifigicus Robustus Erectus (if one can say that in polite company). :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) long (...) If I could properly spill it out of my mouth at all, I would probably be slapped, and not just by ladies within earshot. Rich -- Have Fun! C-Ya! Legoman34 ***** Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (No, I don't work for TLC, but I want (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
Gary Istok skrev i meddelandet <38C66ED9.5E253B41@u...ch.edu>... (...) LEGO... (...) limbless (...) evolved (...) prolific, and (...) I think the 'Stifficanus' should be 'Rigorius'? And the 'Erectus'? Aren't they really 'Mobilus'? I mean, even the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) and (...) What about the figs from this set(is Gary wrong?): <set:1620> . Lugnet says 1978, but Brickset says 1976, which would make it the first set with minifigs. Alan Random set: 5987(not yet on lugnet, since number is from retailer (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) prolific, (...) The minifig as we know it today was introduced in 1978. I have browsed my catalog collection and found only limbless minifigs in 1977 and older catalogs. Also see the text on the top of page 13 of the 1978 catalog: (URL) sets (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Actually MO is a very strange evolution path. There is no relation between MO and Technifigius as you already stated. Actually, MO evolved into canadian arms/crane arms and the like..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Thats where you're dead wrong :) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message news:38C67488.21C488...ich.edu... (...) it in (...) have (...) rest. (...) What is (...) (Well, (...) prepares (...) minifigs are (...) stretcher in (...) to be (...) the (...) Now, (...) we (...) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I spoke with the learned (and opinionated) Dr. Cornelius(1) on this subject not long ago, and here is what he said to me: "You fools! Ze minifig race is nicht deschended from zese 'schtiffies'! Zat is absurdt! Zey haff no limbs! Ve are clearly (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) You're all wrong--minifigs didn't "evolve"... They were created from the firmament so that to any logical observation they appear to have evolved, though in fact it's all a hoax! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) short (...) evolved (...) Canadian arms? Are you inferring that the difference between MO and Technicfigius is that the MO's are Canadian (ala South Park)? Well, one thing is for certain. We know for sure that MO's need to "relieve (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) As further support of this: We all know that modern minifig didn't exist before 197X (see Gary's post for the X, I think it's a 3, but I'm not completely sure). When they arrived on the scene they had complex tools and machines, like police (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) What I want to know is what happened to the now extinct "Biggus Bendyarmicus"? They do share some resemblance to "Technicus Maximus" in terms of size but otherwise this spieces seems to have disappeared even though an occasional arm segment (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I could be mistaken, but haven't these appearances involved grey or translucent colored arm segments? (Roboforce) I think these are artifical limbs made of metal, plastic or glass, not biological limbs. On only women have red hair.. maybe the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) hi y'all ~ i recently inquired under luget.FAQ as to what was the first articulated mini-fig. in all of the great responses, i uncovered set #208, (look up the pic; worth a thousand words) which supports my theory that modern mini-figs evolved (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Not so! At least in the mists of antiquity (Castle & Pirates) male 'figs sported red beards and moustaches...the Royal King and the Black Knight are two excellent examples...however they all apparently shaved their heads to make their various (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I have noted some inconsistencies with your observations below. Perhaps we are working with different population samples? (...) I have noted some exceptions to this - most prominently the female represented <set:6024 here> who is relatively (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) He means the Canadarm as in the Space Shuttle, the mechanical arm which lifts stuff in and out of the shuttle bay. Kevin (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Not so! The Royal King and the Black Knight among others are red-haired men. On the other hand, everyone with red hair wears it long...and everyone with blonde or grey hair wears it short! (...) Again, not so...look at the Dark Forest Chick in (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I never thought that was a female... Pawel (I think) uses that face for Ewan... or might I be mistaken? -Shiri (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) catalogs. (...) This set was a promo set, so it wouldn't be in any catalogs. And Gary's 1977 set is an American only set. Alan Random set: <set:107> (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) I can't see any emoticon, so I think you get me (really) wrong..:-) I mean mechanical crane arms when I say "canadian arm" just as in Town space shuttles and Aquazone/Space thingies. Why someone called those type crane arms as "canadian arms" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) The lack of smiles may be due to thier spritual concerns. They might consider that thier creator is becoming lazy. <Snipped RANT on Juniorization> (...) heads. In the case of sunglasses this may be due to the fact that Minfigus (Erectus?) has (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
Why someone called those (...) Simple...because they were made in Canada by Spar Airospace :) Hence, they are Canada Arms (more correctly than Canadian Arms...) James P (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) Wow, thanks. I didn't know that. I saw the word "canadian arm" at a web page about space shuttle, so I immediately got it as a technical term..:-) I love lugnet, and not only for the sake of bricks..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
"Alan Gerber" <foofoogood@hotmail....ed_e-mail> wrote in message news:Fr6tBo.K73@lugnet.com... (...) 1977 (...) I know the promo set, it's dutch (like me) there isn't a date printed on the instructions so I can't argue about it's release date. It (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO)
|
|
(...) <set:575> is the 1977 set. Alan Random set: <set:6083> (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs
|
|
(...) Spurred by a recent discussion in loc-Sweden, I'll like to take this 4 year old thread up again. I've identified 13 different kind of LEGO figs (not counting Galidor and Bionicle): 1974: The "round-head" big-figs without lower body (what do we (...) (21 years ago, 8-Dec-03, to lugnet.general)
|
