| |
Ok, well, here's my $.02:
I only mod bricks if the end result makes them *more* functional.
F'r instance:
I cut off one o' them ThrowBot thower-arms so I ended up with a ball joint
with an axle on it... I could then use it for other things. LEGO has
rectified this by releasing a ball joint with a technic axle on it for 2001.
I also ground the gunsight off a Wild West rifle so I could put 1x1 cylinder
or other parts on it.
I don't usually cut bricks otherwise.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
> Organization: None
> Newsgroups: lugnet.general
> Followup-To: lugnet.off-topic.debate,lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:35:17 GMT
> Subject: Modifications okay?
>
> This has been discussed previously, but I've noticed a number of posts
> lately on the topic of modifications to bricks, minifigs, and accessories.
> Some involve the removal of printing from parts, while others are wholesale
> alterations of existing bricks. The vast majority of these are cool and are
> rightly greeted with enthusiasm for the creativity involved.
> However, it might be argued that the modification of LEGO parts
> compromises their purity and makes them, in essence, no longer "real" LEGO.
> As such, what do purists think of such modifications? How does the
> community as a whole think modifications affect the "purity" of a brick?
> For that matter, when does a modification become so extreme that the brick
> no longer counts as LEGO?
> I expect some purists feel that any modification--perhaps even down to the
> cutting of rubber tubing--pushes a brick beyond the realm of "pure." Others
> have a more liberal (!) view, allowing modifications as long as the overall
> brick remains true to LEGO's design.
> Bearing all this in mind, might there be a point at which a clone part
> will be more welcome in a model than a modified part? How, and where, does
> one draw the distinction between acceptable modification and unacceptable
> clone? TYCO is generally well-regarded in terms of quality and
> compatibility; does a TYCO brick have a better chance of welcome than a
> MegaBloks brick? Put another way, if I can cobble/glue together a copy of a
> MegaBloks part out of existing LEGO parts, creating thereby a clone of a
> clone, would that new part be greeted with praise or revulsion? (assuming,
> of course, that the original clone part had no direct analog in LEGO).
> Just a few idle thoughts...
>
> Dave!
>
> FUT off-topic.debate and off-topic.clone-brands
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Modifications okay?
|
| This has been discussed previously, but I've noticed a number of posts lately on the topic of modifications to bricks, minifigs, and accessories. Some involve the removal of printing from parts, while others are wholesale alterations of existing (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
