 | | Re: [PRESS RELEASE] INTRODUCING BRICKS? MAGAZINE - THE LEGO® FAN MAGAZINE.
|
|
(...) And that's definitely NOT in the concept. (...) That's what I was saying. (...) OUCH...doesn't that hurt? (...) Would you play with Mega Bloks for a flying bicycle? 8?D Matt (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: [PRESS RELEASE] INTRODUCING BRICKS? MAGAZINE - THE LEGO® FAN MAGAZINE.
|
|
(...) Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside, of course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I wouldn't want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc. Being an AFOL is a very unique (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: [PRESS RELEASE] INTRODUCING BRICKS? MAGAZINE - THE LEGO® FAN MAGAZINE.
|
|
(...) But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as it were? That was my point... (...) Hmmm, there's an idea...Alan Greenspan's (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: [PRESS RELEASE] INTRODUCING BRICKS? MAGAZINE - THE LEGO® FAN MAGAZINE.
|
|
(...) As one of the leading pro-clone loudmouths around here, I feel smugly qualified to comment directly on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely don't think there's any reason to include clone brand info in an "official" (which is not (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: [PRESS RELEASE] INTRODUCING BRICKS? MAGAZINE - THE LEGO® FAN MAGAZINE.
|
|
(...) Hey now...both opinions are valid, so no need for either side to feel put off. As I've already stated, don't count clones out. We are independent of the LEGO Company for a reason. However, this magazine caters to the LEGO fan...as we know, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
