Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:03:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswestSPAMLESS.net
|
Viewed:
|
2047 times
|
| |
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote
>
> Modelling trains with LEGO is fun and a challenge, but scale modelling
> it ain't, so talking about scale is just a waste of time.
I only bring up scale because of the track gauge issue. I think trains built 8
wide compared to 6 wide "look" better. More realistic? Kinda. I just want my
trains wider than a snowmobile. I want my trains to be able to seat 2 figs
across. I think it's better, but I wouldn't say "it is better"....well, not
without good-natured kidding going on;-)
So I wouldn't say talking about scale is a waste of time, just sharing POVs:-)
-John
> There. I think that's what I meant to say :-)
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A246A4.48DF7A6E@...west.net>) wrote at 05:03:40 (...) Ok. point taken :-) Perhaps what I mean is, there is no ultimate answer to the 'What Scale Is Lego?' question. Perhaps it deserves a FAQ entry. Perhaps there is (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<Fpoosu.HrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:22:06 (...) Probably not. I think either John G misread my post, or I misunderstood his disagreement, because I ended up wanting to write the same thing again :-) I guess I'm (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
40 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
|
|
|
|
