| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> < snipped a bunch of very logical reasoning, all correct >
>
> Granted. Every bit of it, except for the part about 2x4 bricks. It is
> difficult to conceive of what else you could build from a monorail
> switch part other than a monorail.
>
> But that is the world of logic. For this specific purpose, I reject it,
> merely because I want to.
>
> Trains are not part of town because they need not be town related.
> Monorails are not part of town or space because they need not be town or
> space related.
>
> My emotions, frail creatures that they are, will always consider Trains
> and Monorail to transcend themes and there isn't a whole lot you can do
> about it. :-)
> It's fun to argue, though.
Indeed. :-)
- I concede your reasoning WRT the 2x4 Brick.
My point being that a common, rare, element between sets will not define
the type of set (for me, anyway).
Your point, that that monorail track sections and the 2x4 bricks are
vastly different from a functional viewpoint is important as well, of
course, as the monorail track does define a monorail set, while a 2x4
brick does not define a "brick" set.
- I do take issue, however (in the grandest spirit of IMHO, of course
<g>) with the fact that you really veered off target when you CHANGED
your argument.
Your original assertion was that 6399, a _Town_ Monorail, should have a
number of the form 69xx, a Space series set number. You said (wrote)
that why they didn't would always be a mystery to you.
Later, your argument changed to
<TLG should have chosen a product-line set numbering series to
properly differentiate the Monorail sets, much as it did with Trains>
(where the brackets specify paraphrasing, not quoting).
The logic applies to your first argument, and would be hard to "beat," I
think. As to your new argument, I wouldn't have as strenuous an
objection to such a condition, though they did the Right Thing in the
end, IMHO.
-- joshua
(who thinks this has not yet reached the l.o-t.f level yet, but who also
admits that it is getting darned close, so has has marked follow-ups
thusly)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Monorail Question
|
| (...) Oh... ya... well... see, I forgot that 69xx was space. Don't pay much attention to space(1). Ya, that's it, I forgot. (2). Actually, I would have been just as happy if the two Space sets were numbered in synch with 6399, but it just seems more (...) (28 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Monorail Question
|
| Joshua Delahunty wrote: < snipped a bunch of very logical reasoning, all correct > Granted. Every bit of it, except for the part about 2x4 bricks. It is difficult to conceive of what else you could build from a monorail switch part other than a (...) (28 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
