Subject:
|
Re: Jake Chat II - Transcript
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:32:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1270 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.
On the flip side, I was very excited to see the 'outreach' that these types of
sessions offer--how many companies do you know that allow a 'one-on-one' with a
representative, free of charge? Especially one that we have a personal vested
interest in?
> 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.
And if you read the words, Jake didn't say anything about set numbering being
completely random, he said that "set numbers are simply not something thought
about together interanally"
which I took to mean that all the various internal divisions of TLC didn't sit
down together and hash out a numbering plan over many meetings--The numbering
sequence was just something that was done, 'subject to change without notice'
'cause really, it wasn't 'that big a deal'--they're set numbers for crying out
loud--it's not as if when I say 8448 or 6990 that you don't know what I'm
talking about--sure it would have been nice to have a 'pure consistent numbering
sequence' but when you're spanning years, that's not going to work so much. If
I recall correctly, the 6880-6889 range got filled up pretty fast--then what
were they suppose to do? And if we look before, space sets were 400's across
the pond and 900's here in North America, if I recall correctly. And who could
forget when a few space sets came out as 1300's? In the end, who cares? I have
my Galaxy Explorer and I could care less if it's 497, 928 or some obscure 10195
(hint hint--*cough* legend *cough*)
> 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
Jake mentioned that there was no change to yellow. I took that to mean all
yellow, but I won't speak for him.
Bottom line for me is that I'm glad that people at TLC are at least putting in
an effort to reach out to the community that we have here.
Keep up the great work, Jake.
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
