Subject:
|
Re: Monorail Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:50:58 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp.iwantnospam.+NoSpam+com
|
Viewed:
|
485 times
|
| |
|
|
Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> > It's fun to argue, though.
>
> Indeed. :-)
> - I do take issue, however (in the grandest spirit of IMHO, of course
> <g>) with the fact that you really veered off target when you CHANGED
> your argument.
>
> Your original assertion was that 6399, a _Town_ Monorail, should have a
> number of the form 69xx, a Space series set number. You said (wrote)
> that why they didn't would always be a mystery to you.
Oh... ya... well... see, I forgot that 69xx was space. Don't pay much
attention to space(1).
Ya, that's it, I forgot. (2). Actually, I would have been just as happy
if the two Space sets were numbered in synch with 6399, but it just
seems more natural that 6399 be numbered 6993. It's just a transpose,
after all, and one that trips me up all the time: 6990, 6991, 6992 (the
putative new monorail) , 6993... I am forever calling AS 6993 instead of
6399. TLG should change their numbering scheme to make MY life easier.
Ya, that's the ticket. (2).
In fact, I heard from secret sources that they're going to do that. And
further, they are going to send every AS owner a new box with the
correct number on it. Really! (3)
So make sure TLG knows your address if you own an AS.
> Later, your argument changed to
> <TLG should have chosen a product-line set numbering series to
> properly differentiate the Monorail sets, much as it did with Trains>
> (where the brackets specify paraphrasing, not quoting).
Much more reasonable, no? Well, actually, I think you're misremembering.
That's what I said at first. Really! Would I lie to you? (2) You're just
making that other stuff up.
> The logic applies to your first argument, and would be hard to "beat," I
> think. As to your new argument, I wouldn't have as strenuous an
> objection to such a condition, though they did the Right Thing in the
> end, IMHO.
IYHO, of course, but not IMHO. We agree this is academic, as I just want
another monorail set, and I could care less what they really number it.
> (who thinks this has not yet reached the l.o-t.f level yet, but who also
> admits that it is getting darned close, so has has marked follow-ups
> thusly)
Way over the line now. So noted and so followed up.
1 - because as Mike Stanley will tell you, it sucks.
2 - Have you met my wife... Morgan Fairchild? Ya, that's it, Morgan
Fairchild.(4)
3 - Just ask MAH4546, he'll validate it. His sources are the best.
4 - WHOM I've slept with!
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Monorail Question
|
| (...) Indeed. :-) - I concede your reasoning WRT the 2x4 Brick. My point being that a common, rare, element between sets will not define the type of set (for me, anyway). Your point, that that monorail track sections and the 2x4 bricks are vastly (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.general)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
