 | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Frank Filz
|
| | | (...) 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!!! —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | "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!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | 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!!! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | 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!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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!!! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) You got a deal, I have a lot of those. Contact me offline for my snail. Be forewarned, though, it may take a very very close and very very detailed examination, on the order of several years of study, before I'm ready to reply. (note carefully (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Mohan Visvesvaran
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) After Larry is done, send it to me and I'll return you just the missing piece. Visu (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | Jeez I'm glad I said "maybe"!!! ROSCO Visu <eng01241@NUS.EDU.SG> wrote in message news:G9F265.9C8@lugnet.com... (...) detailed (...) reply. (...) piece. (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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!!! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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!!! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | [removed .dear-lego from crosspost list on this reply -- remember that dear-lego is for open letters to TLC] (...) Frank said "good reasons," not "good uses." Big difference. :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | [removed .dear-lego from crosspost list on this reply] (...) The original example for a "POOP" (_P_ieces _O_utta _O_ther _P_ieces) back on RTL was a 1x1x5 tall brick, but IMHO, a BURP would also be an excellent example of a POOP. Naturally, it's (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | Oh, well, so much for my resolve to stay out of the fray... (...) Part of my point on BURPs wasn't that in many instances they are effectively POOPs but that there are models which take advantage of their hollowness. Probably such a use wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I don't think anyone said that. But I know I've had creations (not good enough to see the light of day, my scrap ratio is higher than some folks) that took advantage of the hollowness. ++Lar (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
