|
|
 | | Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
|
| (...) I've been trying to keep a low profile on this thread after having stirred the pot at the beginning, but now that I think of it, I have a few pseudo- philosophical questions. There've been myriad discussions of the merits and shortcomings of (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
|
| (...) Personally, I wouldn't care one way or the other *intrinsically* if ldraw.org decided to host off-brand elements... What I (personally) would be very sad to see is LEGO stuff being *mixed* with off-brand stuff. That's what I meant by going the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
|
| (...) I hate to reply just to insert a "me too", but I whole-heartedly agree. And folks (I won't name names) second-guessing James' prejudices without actually having *met* him exhibits more than a fair amount of arrogance, IMHO. The way I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
|
| I am pretty purist myself and can't see using clones or modeling with them (except in trains if some clone comes along and delivers what most trainheads want at acceptable quality levels), but I repeat my thesis: Why be exclusionary? What's wrong (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
|
| (...) I read that page and I don't recall 'Lego' being mentioned once. But your interpretation is correct. (...) The 'Centralized LDraw Resources' is, but the meaning behind it is subject to change. (...) Ewww! Ewww! Ewww! Ewww! Ewww! You've proven (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
