Subject:
|
Spacial Relations (was Re: Air lock and ship docking discussion)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:22:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
703 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Damian Garcia writes:
>
> "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FqBD5o.52J@lugnet.com...
> > I guess
> > I'm just more of a peace-monger, and want to see everyone's worlds get • along
> > without undesired wars popping up, instead of: "Here's a picture of Bill's
> > supership blowing Sam's fleet clear out of the cosmos. Here's a picture of • Sam
> > being resentful. Here's a picture of Sam packing up his Lego bricks and
> > leaving."
>
> *The names have been changed to protect the innocent*
Heh, good ol' Bill Blank, and his pal Sam Sample.
> Would there be anything wrong with "Bill" and "Sam's" force for good teaming
> up to thwart the evil alliance of "Sam" and "Bill's"? I think
> inter-galactic combat is a large part of fleets in space. Sci-fi today is
> nothing without some kind of conflict! My point (I guess) is if "Bill"
> designed and built an evil fleet for the purpose of thrashing, why not
> thrash them! I have a hard time building a space craft that has no weapons.
I should have been clearer in that earlier post, but I have no problem
regarding builder-desired or "planned" war between good and evil minifigs,
between factions that misunderstand each other, or for whatever other reasons
there are for conflict, so long as all the "Bills" and "Sams" involved agree
to do it. In your example, Bill and Sam continue to "play well" together even
though they're blowing up ships and enemies made/designed by them as per their
mutual consent (thus illustrating an instance of "playing well").
Maybe in "Spaceville" (for current lack of a better name), the Prime Directive
amongst builders should be "Play Well". This might seem overly-obvious in the
universe of Lego itself, but sometimes amongst all our discussion it can be
inadvertantly buried.
Also, while most folks don't seem to have this problem, conceivably less-
mature [newbie][overly-exuberant] FOLs might try to "egg on" another builder
into a conflict that is really just a cover for one-up-manship. IMO, this is
clearly not "playing well". (BTW, I have neither the desire to nor do not in
any way intimate that we should "check up" on people to see if they're playing
well.. that's up to them.)
Though I don't read the group, I imagine that even Datsville folks have
discussions about where certain things should go and that not everyone is
always perfectly happy with the final placement of buildings and such. But
with us, our universes' inhabitants are not so fixed or permanently placed. We
can choose to locate our spaceforces wherever we want to. My minifigs forces
can "visit" Bram Lambrecht's or Tim Courtney's at any time, given our mutual
permission. But there's another difference from Datsville: my minifigs can
leave and then go back home, whereas in Town, Datsville is all that there is
in that universe unless someone starts another Town Datsville. But even that
is much more limited that what we can do.
How are we doing so far on this? My thanks to all who want to see this work
and are moving toward its realization.
-Tom McD.
when replying, cut spamcake carcasses were once used in woodworking as jigs.
Note: Lugnet and rec.toys.lego are family forums
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Air lock and ship docking discussion
|
| "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message news:FqBD5o.52J@lugnet.com... (...) along (...) Sam (...) *The names have been changed to protect the innocent* Would there be anything wrong with "Bill" and "Sam's" force for good (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.space)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
