Subject:
|
Re: I thought as much
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:08:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1540 times
|
| |
|
|
But see another recent Lego names source for parts
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1602
Philo
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes:
> http://www.lugnet.com/quickset/search.cgi?q=1221,1&w=0
>
> This scan shows an old accessory pack of (pre studless) Lego elements.
>
> It cleary describes them as beams. So can we stop calling beams, bricks,
> when they're obviously beams, and can we call the new imposters studless
> beams therefore creating a clear naming convention and avoiding confusion.
>
> Steve
>
> Who would happily use studless beams, but I can't get them in quantity either.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I thought as much
|
| (...) argument. What better way to destroy the memory of the old part than to reuse it's name. Actually as I said before they're both beams. The old type is the default beam so gets the short hand 'beam'. In order to distinguish the new type from (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I thought as much
|
| (URL) scan shows an old accessory pack of (pre studless) Lego elements. It cleary describes them as beams. So can we stop calling beams, bricks, when they're obviously beams, and can we call the new imposters studless beams therefore creating a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
