To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 6847
6846  |  6848
Subject: 
Re: Modifications okay?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
Date: 
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:13:36 GMT
Reply-To: 
eric@ericharshbarger.org=ihatespam=
Viewed: 
234 times
  
I, for one, am an extreme purist, in that I never modify, paint, carve,
decorate, or do anything else to my pieces. I don't even like to glue
the pieces together (an only do so when shipping large models to
clients, where the glue is necessary for strength).

Basically, I only use pieces as they come directly out of the box.

Of course, I realize this is as extreme as one can get toward purity,
and I would certainly hope other form their own opinions on how to use
their bricks.

eric

Dave Schuler wrote:

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harshbarger / eric@ericharshbarger.org / www.ericharshbarger.org

"Oh please, if people are going to start telling the truth around
here... I'm going to bed." - Jackie-O (Parker Posey, THE HOUSE OF YES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------



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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR