Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:21:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.*nomorespam*net
|
Viewed:
|
1052 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > There's still much to do, both from the AFOL side and from TLG. I think if
> > we all work towards a common goal we could make the trains theme better for
> > everyone.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see this thread as "working toward a common goal".
What is the common goal??? That's what I'm trying to establish . Would people
still want toywides or would they want something more? Do people just want more
metroliners in 5 colors, or something more? *Do people really care, or would
they just buy whatever TLC produced*.
> Instead what I see is that J2 has went to every post that he didn't agree
> with and tried to refute it, point by point.
Well, when someone starts tossing around nonsense about 33% more bricks along
x,y, and z, suggest a price doubling, and then someone else thinks, based on that
statement, that they'd have to increase the size of their already giant layout
33%, yeah, I'll refute. Or, if someone suggests that any change is bad because
it would make a 40 year old design obsolete, I'll press it (I'm thinking about
magnet couplers here).
> If someone were trying to
> hypothetically gather information in order to *understand* the cross section
> of opinions out there, that's not the way that one ought to go about doing
> it, one ought to listen instead of try to rebut and impose one's own opinions.
I just get the feeling that people would build *whatever* width TLC produced.
Most people just build from sets anyway, and I highly doubt that if TLC started
producing 8 wide trains that there would be a minority who would build 6 wide in
"protest". People only build 6 wide *now* because it is the standard TLC set.
It is a question whether we should just continue doing it *because* that's the
way it's always been done, or whether there is some *merit* for the reason.
-John
> I will say this. One good suggestion that this thread has raised is to
> reconsider the design of new elements that have bilateral symmetry. These
> should be released as half elements instead so that the width is no longer
> so strongly dialed in. (the many multislope cockpit bottoms and tops ought
> to be split down the middle so one doesn't have to make a 4 wide or 6 wide
> (or whatever width the designer wanted for his design) creation from it)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
| (...) Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't see this thread as "working toward a common goal". Instead what I see is that J2 has went to every post that he didn't agree with and tried to refute it, point by point. If someone were trying to hypothetically (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
