 | | Re: MB sightings
|
|
(...) useless), (...) Indeed, thank goodness we have LUGnet to make up for Lego's useless WWW site. Will a MBnet emerge? Or will LUGnet include the MB sets in the database and news hierarchy etc? And who's brave enough to ask Todd? Kerry (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: MB sightings
|
|
(...) LUGNET is based on LEGO(R) products and will not have MEGA BLOKS in its database. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: MB sightings
|
|
(...) Rather proves my point, doesn't it? :-) Kerry (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) This seems like an unnecessarily severe attitude to take. I say we should have both a Tyco and a Mega Bloks clones database link from at least the off- topic clone-brands section of Lugnet. If one is interested one can find it; if one is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) personally, I think there's no room for such a DB on lugnet. If you want to start up your own DB offsite, then perhaps Todd would put a link from off-topic.clones to your DB - but I don't think it should be on site. (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) but (...) Blimey, I make a humorous off-the-cuff comment in the Australia newsgroup and next thing I know it's all set to become World War 3 in other groups. Perhaps we should put a warning on the Australian newsgroup along the following lines (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
Yes, I agree with Dan. I think a link to an off-site database or clone portal would be very useful information. Even the rtl LEGO FAQ page had a section of clones information. (URL) no, I find no reason that the database or any other information (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) link to that. It doesn't need to be hosted on lugnet.com. (...) Me neither. (...) 152 by my count -- and 144 if you ignore the "Are you paying attention..." thread. But even if it were 1000 -- LUGNET is about LEGO(R) user groups and detailed (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) One reason I would like to see a clone database hosted by Lugnet would so that it could have a consistent feel. Todd has gone to a lot of effort to produce a good set database engine, why squander that effort only on LEGO brand sets? If Todd (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) It costs money to run a server. You wanna throw your own money at hosting content related to imitation brands, go right ahead. There are plenty of hosting services. (...) I agree. (...) I'm not against helping people find information about (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Before Todd wears yet another hammering, a quick note in support, feel free to hunt me instead. Contrary to the culture of entitlement popular in the US (you know, I'm owed stuff just 'cause I'm here, ne'er-do-wells protesting 'I have rights' (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
Hey, I think Todd was being overly polite there (see: Are we being to nice?). What he <b>could</b> have said is: "**** off, this is LUGNET. This is our site. We will host what we want to host. You want register MegaBlocksUG or TycoUG .com? Go ahead, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) I have a real problem with Lugnet being considered Todd and Suzanne's exclusive sandbox -- in reality, it is and it isn't depending on what part we are examining. People contribute time, money, content, scans, etc. It strikes me as a community (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Oh, certainly!! Neither Todd nor Richard are saying that. I think the inference is that everyone hanging out here is part of the community; but the sandbox itself? Yep, that's Todd and Suz's only. And ultimately, if they decide they don't want (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
Well, just to throw in $.02 here, I'd be curious to see a clone database, and I might even use it from time to time. However, two things: A. If we view it as Todd & Suz's sandbox, it's their choice. B. If we see them as fulfilling our needs/wants in (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Dan & Jenn Boger do, yes -- and have done incredibly huge great things in the past few months for the data in the DB. Selçuk Göre and Joshua Delahunty also have access and have done huge great things too. --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) It's not in the business plan. (...) It's also a matter of principle. (...) LUGNET would not be LUGNET. (...) --Todd (also baldly going :-) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Hear Hear. Very well put, Richard. I would hasten to add that the contribution of time, money, scans, information, etc. to Lugnet is subject to the Terms and Conditions, just like participation here. Merely contributing something doesn't give (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) No reasons?..:-) What do you think that this "L" of Lugnet stands for?..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) But even then we come back to the fact that Todd is paying to run the server, and paying for the traffic. If he just plain doesn't want Lugnet to host scans of clone instructions or catalogues, then it won't. Of course, meanwhile, there are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Most definitely. I was referring to Todd's stated intent (from way back...) that he might at some point place the code that runs LUGNET or parts of it under GPL. (that's probably an incorrect paraphrase of what he said, though, I think it was (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) Even inasmuch as I'm a huge fan of clone brands, I have to agree that LUGNET is a resource primarily for LEGO users. The space provided in off-topic.clone-brands is sufficient for the few fringe discussions that pop up. (...) Whatever else you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Warning: Australians (Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Maybe include a reference to a national fondness for robust discourse and colourful language, and a general suspicion of delicate sensibilities? I like it :-) Richard Still baldly going... And I do realise that I rather inflamed the situation (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
(...) Well, if there isn't support for a clones database that's fine. But I still think that the L stands for "legos" in the generic plastic brick meaning -- at least for most people that see it. Most are not purists, especially from the outside. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
(...) Warning: exactly the kind of post that should go to .o-t.vent follows. So I've o-t.d'ed, but since this <treacley juggernaut> of a thread is still in .au, I'm not holding back. And I should say that I'm more than a bit <treacley>'d off with a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Parts one and three of this argument only hold true if you decide in advance that they're true. If, as a LEGO user, I identify a single brick as "a Lego," why is it grammatically incorrect to refer to several bricks as "Legos?" Forget about (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Are they the only thing keeping LEGO from complacency, or are they driving LEGO to juniorise the heck out of everything? If they didn't have to contend with competition, would they be dumbing down their sets, or would they be producing (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion. (...) I would argue (and again, this is entirely the way it works in my fat head)that you, as a LEGO user, would be as wrong (or right) to identify a single brick as "a Lego" as you would be if (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) My take is that LEGO's trend toward Juniorization would continue with or without market competition, since we have evidence of its roots long before any serious competitor hit the market. LEGO can't blame (not that they do) their own reduced (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) (assuming it's an open question...) Could you ever have a total, _total_ competition vacuum? Because if there's a market, there's kids, and if there's kids there's no vacuum since they can always make up their own games. And if they couldn't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
(...) It's wrong, but not for that reason. It's wrong because it's an adjective, and adjectives don't really have plurals. But in popular usuage, it's a noun, and there's no reason for it to not have a regular plural. And people do say "I drank a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Fair enough, but you must agree that because of that circular reasoning the argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it. (...) I understand and accept that, but many people identify LEGO as a singular noun in that usage, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
(...) Thank you Matthew. And because I've had two hours sleep in about forty I'll just point out that 1. fast and red are in fact adjectives, hence the first example, and 2. Coke is a trademark and a proper noun (like LEGO) hence the second example. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) I am so _not_ going to get in a cultural relativism argument over grammar and aesthetics. I'm a liberal in principle and a conservative in practice (except for anything from the seventies). (...) Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist standpoint or not. (...) I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) I don't really think so, no. Because to have a total competition vacuum assumes that you're talking about a company that makes boxes full of elements and hands them to kids in a round grey room with absolutely nothing else to do. I guess a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) AND... (...) How is it that Frank asks perfectly reasonable and polite questions and still gets no response? I, for one, do not see the matter as wholly settled -- nor have I been satisfied with the nature of Todd's other AND still rather (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
(...) It's normal language behavior. People call Netscape Navigator "netscape". I even know people who (not so much now, but a few years ago) call Microsoft Word "microsoft". No one says "may I have a kleenex facial tissue". It's natural to treat (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database)
|
|
"Overview and Definitions lugnet.com (“LUGNET”) is a privately owned Internet site designed and run primarily for the benefit of those who enjoy building with, discussing, collecting, buying & selling, trading, and exchanging information about (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
Dave Low wrote: Just for being clear, I already share your arguments that I snipped, and I already give some comments in my posts about it, but I have some objections here..:-) (...) Are you sure?..:-) All the non lego people around here (who (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
|
(...) I didn't realize they'd heard of "Lego Lar" in Turkey. Wow, he gets around. ;^D ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin -- Mark's Lego Creations (URL) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Treacleheads
|
|
(...) Okay. The decision in advance that "a usage is wrong" is subjective (and legitimately so) from the relativist viewpoint. And you're right, it will only appeal to people sharing those cultural norms of grammar and aesthetics (hence the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) Richard, As much as I, you or anyone else would like or bennefit from such an expansion of LUGNET, we have have to understand a couple of realities as far as LUGNET is concerned. Before I expand on this, allow me to put forth a few (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) this is an interesting thread. if someone decides to start a database site i would be glad to pass over everything on my constructions clones site (or whatever is deemed useful). i think there is enough info for a good start (i've got quite a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) I have feared this might be true (although I suppose it remains an unknown quantity for the moment). If it were to happen -- I would not likely participate. It's one thing to provide content in these threads as a legos user talking with other (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
Richard Schamus wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Gosh, I hope not. Yes, at some point a fraction of each places contents could be made obsolete by TLC's site, but some things to consider: - I doubt TLC will have a better interface than either site. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) Uhhhh, in a word: NOT. --Todd (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) Perhaps, since I've been speculating, I'll speculate a bit more. *If* either of these wonderful internet intsitutions ever come directly under the "banner" of TLC it does not mean that they would control the content. It is my hope and belief (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) And there you have it. Not quite as likely as once thought. (Hmm... I wrote the above weeks ago... I must be getting slower...) Thank you for you word of clarification Todd. Rich -- Have Fun! C-Ya! Legoman34 ***** Legoman34 (Richard W. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: Clones Database (was Re: MB sightings)
|
|
(...) Really? Cool! What kind of MB parts were used? Does anyone have pictures? Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
