| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Not paying attention, that's all. Here is a proof for you:
>
> 1. You design better sets than TLC does.
> 2. I design better sets than you do.
> 3. Therefore, by transitive closure, I design better sets than TLC.
>
> QED :=)
1: I would never claim that. I build stuff with *one* idea in mind -
realism. I don't worry about piece counts, or difficulty to build, or price
points. Lego would probably never use one of my models as a "set", because
they would be too expensive to produce, and probably too complicated for the
average kid to build. Lego has to worry about all these things when they
design sets. I have a friend who worked for Futura designing some of the
Technic, Space, and Star Wars sets. He tells a story about one of his
SnowSpeeder prototypes not being approved because it came out to 2 *cents*
over the 'cost to produce' they were looking for...
2: Debatable, or just see #1.
JohnG, GMLTC
(reach me at gmltc_j1 @ yahoo.com )
fut off-topic.debate, since there's no need to waste valuable forum space on
this topic...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Re - Realease Old Themes?
|
| (...) Not paying attention, that's all. Here is a proof for you: 1. You design better sets than TLC does. 2. I design better sets than you do. 3. Therefore, by transitive closure, I design better sets than TLC. QED :=) (this german keyboard is (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jul-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.trains)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
