 | | Re: Too much crane?
|
|
(...) NO! Never! (...) one has certainly exceeded your previous works. (...) I'm really looking forward to seeing the inner details of your crane. I know we're all going to ooh and ahh over your intricate and clever mechanical mechanisms, especially (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) And (...) No, I'm not (IMO). (...) No, they are names, one letter of which stands for LEGO. They do not contain the word LEGO. Why else do you think LEGO leaves them alone, while asking the developers to rename legOS? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.debate (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | fairness to tim
|
|
in all fairness to tim, there's nothing WRONG about his opinion.... and Tobbe is gracious to change his motm name (another lugnetter uses MotMoment) so, no harm, no foul. -paul (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) And re-reading this, it could be interpreted that I thought Paul was being destructive. That's not what I meant. I meant to exempt him from that and say that I felt his comments were constructive. Doh! -Tim (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
|
(...) Did I use the word 'trademark' once? (...) Look at the context of their use of the words as I explained in my last post. (...) This comment has nothing constructive in it, it is only childish and spiteful. I have attempted to steer this (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
