|
|
 | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| (...) Ah, yes, now I remember. The rest of the manual all showed one dome 1 stud away, but on the pictures both are flush. I just put mine flush, I think it's a typo. I snapped a picture with my camera of it: (URL) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| (...) I'm not sure if it was only me, but I noticed some discrepancies with the deflector shield domes ("golf balls"). Most steps show one dome flush against the edge of the plate it sits on, and the other dome 1 stud away from the edge. Can someone (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| "Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message news:H7szBH.CAG@lugnet.com... (...) ISD] <snip> (...) together, (...) greatest (...) (in (...) I agree about the unusual use of the magnets. They are a bit weak, yes. But If you take in count (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| Hey Kerry, While I'll agree that the model is not easily handled and cannot be swooshed around, I wasn't disappointed by this at all. In fact, I expected it. Given it's scale, the model would have to be glued together to be sturdy enough (horrors!). (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Trademark infringement by LEGO and Lucasfilm?
|
| (...) Actually, according to starwars.com the name is "GNK droid"... (URL) the paper you have actuall say 'Gonk' or was it 'GNK'? If it was a Lego paper that said "Gonk" then the litigation would be directed towards Lego, since starwars.com does not (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.general)
|
|
