 | | Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Jennifer Clark (<3AE83CC5.1C8501F1@...e.dmem.str ath.ac.uk>) wrote at 15:20:37 (...) But only a creative use of a bad part. If they didn't make so many bad pieces that they can *only* find 'creative' uses for, the sets would (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
|
"Jennifer Clark" <jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> wrote (...) I am the only one here who didn't like this model? I picked it up < half price but still rate it as one of my least fave sets (well, out of the ones I own anyway). Only really good points (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
|
(...) Yeah. For how good a set that is I'm surprised it was a Shop at Home exclusive, therefore relegating it to "lesser-known" status. (24 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
|
(...) Agreed! I think that this was the only 1999 set that could stand up to some of the sets from previous years...it has a lot of functionality integrated into a relatively small unit. And yeah, it is a very good example of the fact that high (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Does anyone have a REALLY GOOD photo of the the 8466
|
|
(...) I've also been trying to look for some large pictures of this model but have not had any luck. I have seen one picture of it but it is pretty small (384x288). From the little that I've seen and heard of it though, it looks like a stunning set (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
