Subject:
|
Re: Re - Realease Old Themes?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:24:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Not paying attention, that's all. Here is a proof for you:
> >
> > 1. You design better sets than TLC does.
> > 2. I design better sets than you do.
> > 3. Therefore, by transitive closure, I design better sets than TLC.
> >
> > QED :=)
>
>
> 1: I would never claim that. I build stuff with *one* idea in mind -
> realism.
Right on, brother.
> I don't worry about piece counts, or difficulty to build, or price
> points.
Oh, and Dan Siskind (who is also a better designer than TLC... for adults)
does?
> Lego would probably never use one of my models as a "set", because
> they would be too expensive to produce, and probably too complicated for the
> average kid to build. Lego has to worry about all these things when they
> design sets. I have a friend who worked for Futura designing some of the
> Technic, Space, and Star Wars sets. He tells a story about one of his
> SnowSpeeder prototypes not being approved because it came out to 2 *cents*
> over the 'cost to produce' they were looking for...
Well, you just proved #1, not that it needed proving. :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Re - Realease Old Themes?
|
| (...) 1: I would never claim that. I build stuff with *one* idea in mind - realism. I don't worry about piece counts, or difficulty to build, or price points. Lego would probably never use one of my models as a "set", because they would be too (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jul-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.trains)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
