Subject:
|
Re: Jake Chat II - Transcript
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:17:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Thomas Main wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> > This past Saturday at <www.classic-castle.com> we had a second chat with Jake
> > McKee. Our members had excellent questions. You can see the transcript
> > here:
> >
> > <http://www.classic-castle.com/events/chat02.html>
> >
> > Ben Ellermann
> >
> > CC Events Admin
>
> I don't know why I bother to read these sessions. I am usually left feeling
> worse about TLC than I would have had I not bothered. One exchange, in
> particular bugged me this time:
>
> [architect] ok, next to Jojo then
> [Jojo] Who is in charge for set numbers, and what criteria are established for
> new set numbers? The new KK-Sets clearly are in the Technic range... Does
> anybody working for TLC still have a sense for traditions?
> [Jojo] And please do not say there hadn't been free numbers in the former Castle
> range (60xx). There are plenty of free numbers left that I am afraid will be
> filed with non-Castle stuff in future.
> [sink21] Jojo, I don't know the answer to that one.
> [sink21] I personally didn't even realize this was such a big issue
> [Jojo] OK
> [sink21] I'm curiuos now... is this a problem or simply something that you were
> curious about?
> [Jojo] It's not much of a problem... I'm still curious.
> [Jojo] Not a problem like colour changes..
> [sink21] jojo, i think that tradition and set numbers are simply not something
> thought about together interanally... like using a certain supplier... it's not
> a tradition to be protected, just something we've done. Let me think on this a
> bit
>
> I think that set numbers *were* thought about internally at one time, otherwise,
> the set numbering system would be a lot more random than it is. Consider this
> r.t.l post from back in '98:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lego+range+%22set+numbers+%22&hl=en&lr=&selm=367166D4.22B0619%40ihug.co.nz&rnum=1
>
> or, use this shorter link if the above doesn't work for you:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?I1F562099
>
> Clearly, there is some rhyme & reason to set numbering - or at least there was
> at one time. I find it annoying that Jake often makes pronouncements that do
> not tightly adhere to the facts or do not consider some important details of the
> situation.
>
> I am also curious about whether the answer to the change in yellow was meant in
> regard to "yellow" or "cool yellow/light yellow."
>
> --
> Thomas Main
> thomasmain@myrealbox.com
Another "unofficial" response: I think we can all make the general
inference that the sets were at once ordered and structured. Lego itself
is too disorganized, it doesn't know its right hand from its left, therefore,
you have a disorganized set numbering system...
ie... Knights Kingdom in the technic theme number, etc.
Most of the exclusives nowadays are generally in the 10xxx, so maybe Lego
isn't completely disorganized.
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Jake Chat II - Transcript
|
| (...) I don't know why I bother to read these sessions. I am usually left feeling worse about TLC than I would have had I not bothered. One exchange, in particular bugged me this time: [architect] ok, next to Jojo then [Jojo] Who is in charge for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
