| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Terry Prosper wrote:
> I'd say no.
>
> This is a site dedicated to LEGO products (IMO), so the promotion of MOC done
> with clones wouldn't respect that fact.
Well, I'd have to disagree and say "probably". My main focus is technic, and
several great MOCs have been announced and discussed in the technic group which
use modified LEGO, or totally user-created parts (the obvious example is John
Barnes' HiTechnic sensors and other parts, used extensively by many builders).
Painted parts & home-brew stickers etc are also reasonably common. I see no
difference between this and using the occasional clone.
However the MOCs are generally high-percentage LEGO - from what I've seen many
of yours (Dave) are high-percentage clone, so maybe an announcement in .moc with
follow-ups to .c-b may be the best option, to minimise flamage. ;)
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) That's kind of what I had in mind, but I wasn't sure if even that would be beyond the bounds of the MOC announcement group. My recent MOCs have been 100% clone, with arguable overlap among "common" elements, like 1x8 bricks and 2x2 tiles. If I (...) (21 years ago, 18-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A serious clone question
|
| I'd say no. This is a site dedicated to LEGO products (IMO), so the promotion of MOC done with clones wouldn't respect that fact. Also, and maybe more importantly, I, like many others, have no interest whatsoever in MOC made with clone parts. A (...) (21 years ago, 15-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
