| |
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Kevin Knoot writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Jason Reese writes:
>
> > >
> > > In case it hasn't been thrown out, how would the Sopwith Camel play into the
> > > Lego non-implicit violence scheme?
> > >
> > > Jason
> >
> > Especially since it has a pair of machine guns on it.
> >
> > Give it another 25 years or so to remove the last generations with direct
> > contact to WW2, and I won't be surprised to see a Model Team Tiger tank.
> >
> > As far as "war toys" go, I'm surprised we haven't seen a Monitor or Merrimac
> > from the Civil War yet. Wasn't there a USS Constitution - the Revolutionary
> > warship? And the Armada ships and Soldiers? Same with the Wild West
> > soldiers. Explicitly violent w/guns war toys. Just give them more time to
> > remove the stigma WW2 still (rightfully) has, and then you see your Spitfire.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> You could well be right - I think a lot of it is the proximity of the item
> in question to people who actually suffered from it. The propeller driven
> biplane isn't viewed as much of a threat anymore. The Spitfire may go the
> same route (but at this rate, not in my lifetime). Tanks, on the other
> hand, have become more sophisticated and powerful, but the basic format is
> the same.
Oh, I don't know, ask the boll weevil if it thinks a biplane is a
threat, especially when dispensing pesticide...but yeah, the point
is valid.
...and the basic format of the tank isn't the format it started with.
Look at "Mother" and "Little Willie" to see what permutations it went
through before [1] they settled on the Cheesebox on a Tracked Raft [2].
> But the real reason for the reply: The USS Constitution wasn't around in the
> Revolutionary War. It made its name during the War of 1812. :-)
Well, its name as we think of it now, but its first combat actions
were against French warships during the "undeclared" war of 1799-1800.
Those Humphreys frigates were (are) mighty nifty!
But at any rate, the kit was 398, USS Constellation, not the USS
Constitution. It's worth noting that the frigate USS Constellation
does *not* exist (it was broken up in the 1850s)--the Constellation
that's afloat today is a sloop of 20-some guns that dates from a
later period.
best
LFB
[1] The Renault FT of 1917 was the first of the "modern" pattern,
but it was not considered standard until the mid-1920s.
[2] Which is, of course, a modification of the derisive description
first given to USS Monitor in 1862.
XFUT -> .general
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Factions (and violence)
|
| In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: (oops, snipped one credit too much, this is me that starts this) (...) I can't fault your statement, but I did say "people". :-) (...) Treads, armored body, with various barrels sticking out was what (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Factions (and violence)
|
| (...) Or so you and Howard I. Chapelle claim ;) The real question is whether a 398 Constellation, restored by LEGO Direct and offered as kit 10004, sould be named U.S.S. Constellation. -- Thomas Main main@appstate.edu (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Factions (and violence)
|
| (...) You could well be right - I think a lot of it is the proximity of the item in question to people who actually suffered from it. The propeller driven biplane isn't viewed as much of a threat anymore. The Spitfire may go the same route (but at (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
