 | | 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. (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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. (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
