violet/purple bricks
Leo Choy
Richard
Kevan Houser
>
> does anyone notice that lego does not have violet/purple bricks?
What about the purple ones in the Mindstorms expansion set? 9732 Extreme Creatures?
There are some purple bricks (slope & reverse slope) in there.
--
Kevan
LEGO: CA++++(6067) SP(6983),PI,WWc,PA(6416)+++ AQ++ BO,TC---
#+++++ S++++ LS+++ M+ A+++ yb62m.
Christopher L. Weeks
one of those dart-projecting technic sets...and Cyber Slam? Am I just insane?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
Leo Choy
Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> And isn't one of the throwbot's purple? Maybe it wasn't a throwbot, but
> one of those dart-projecting technic sets...and Cyber Slam? Am I just insane?
>
> Kevan Houser wrote:
> >
> > Leo Choy wrote:
> > >
> > > does anyone notice that lego does not have violet/purple bricks?
> >
> > What about the purple ones in the Mindstorms expansion set? 9732 Extreme Creatures?
> > There are some purple bricks (slope & reverse slope) in there.
> > --
> > Kevan
looks like I ignored mindstorms and technics, i was only concentrating on lego system
Todd S. Thuma
colors are Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Purple and Blue). Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
Opps, they make purple in the CyberSlam series and purple in the Paradisa series. There goes
that theory.
Todd
t a heist
the purple mech.
< g >
Build on,
Aaron
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> According to Jerry Fallwell, purple is a Gay Pride color (I guess he doesn't know Gay Pride
> colors are Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Purple and Blue).
Oh my, my car is red, my grass is green, and my eyes are blue...I wonder
if I've been giving people the wrong impression? ;-)
> Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
> Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
>
> Opps, they make purple in the CyberSlam series and purple in the Paradisa series. There goes
> that theory.
No, see, they're just throwing a bone to special interests. Lego
doesn't want to be seen by the religious right-hook as supporting
homosexuality, but doesn't want to alienate their gay customers either.
So they're sending you mixed signals.
Christopher L. Weeks
>
>
> > Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
> > Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
>
I know people who are normally trustworthy who claim to have read the
Bible. What's your point? (I may just be showing my biblical
ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
t a heist
afford) to wear it because it was an extremely long process to make an
*ounce* of dye. 3,000 or so shelfish? I might be wrong, but that must be
pretty close.
Build on,
<>< Aaron
Todd S. Thuma
Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> I know people who are normally trustworthy who claim to have read the
> Bible. What's your point? (I may just be showing my biblical
> ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
And its nearly Easter!
Todd
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> > Bible. What's your point? (I may just be showing my biblical
> > ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
>
> And its nearly Easter!
OK, now you're mocking me. Easter is all about Jesus, right? I'm sure
that I would have heard about it before now if Christ was purple.
Richard
<36FFC2A5...@cococo.net>...
> Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > Lord Insanity wrote:
> > > Has anyone ever read The Bible?
> >
> > ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
> >
> afford) to wear it because it was an extremely long process to make an
> *ounce* of dye. 3,000 or so shelfish? I might be wrong, but that must be
> pretty close.
Mmmm. Originally Greeks I think, then the Romans, and something about
shellfish in the Mediterranean, and short seasons, or lives, or something.
Terrifying really. "Just imagine" how many shellfish must have died for the
purple slizers/throwbots.
And in respect of Bible reading, I would recommend it for everyone. I still
remember the opening of Genesis from my school days. I may have a few words
wrong, but it goes something like this:
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss,
while a mighty wind swept the waters.
Then God said, "Let there be plates" and there were plates.
God saw how good the plates were.
God then lifted from the surface of the plates the studs.
The plates with the studs God called Lego,
and everything else he called Building Space for Lego.
His mother turned out the light and said "Its late, go to sleep."
- the first day.
Regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
KC
discuss religion in this newsgroup? Isn't that what alt.christnet et al are
for?
Richard <rpar...@hinet.net.au> wrote in <01be7b1c$5f295e80$4e6b15cb@default>:
>Mmmm. Originally Greeks I think, then the Romans, and something about
>shellfish in the Mediterranean, and short seasons, or lives, or something.
>
>Terrifying really. "Just imagine" how many shellfish must have died for the
>purple slizers/throwbots.
>
>And in respect of Bible reading, I would recommend it for everyone. I still
>remember the opening of Genesis from my school days. I may have a few words
>wrong, but it goes something like this:
>
> << remainder snipped >>
Dennis Clark
: I know there's a disclaimer in the subject header, but do we really need to
: for?
Did you finish reading the post? It was about as tongue-in-cheek as
anything that I have read anywhere else - perhaps not terribly original,
but neither is your grouching...
peace,
DLC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark (970)898-4313 email d...@fc.hp.com |
| Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor |
------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------
KC
> Did you finish reading the post? It was about as tongue-in-cheek as
>anything that I have read anywhere else - perhaps not terribly original,
>but neither is your grouching...
Hardly relevant and hardly tongue-in-cheek.
RTL has been relatively spam- and troll-free up to this point, and this is
what I enjoyed about it. BTW, your response isn't enlightening or
constructive either.
Ron Perovich
Christianity being thrown in my face all the time as the next Atheist but
even I thought his improvement of the Genesis text was funny. I even
forwarded a copy to my equally anti-religious brother and he liked it as
well.
Dennis Clark
: Dennis Clark <d...@fc.hp.com> wrote in <7dtiik$frc$2...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>:
: > Did you finish reading the post? It was about as tongue-in-cheek as
: >anything that I have read anywhere else - perhaps not terribly original,
: >but neither is your grouching...
: Hardly relevant and hardly tongue-in-cheek.
: RTL has been relatively spam- and troll-free up to this point, and this is
: what I enjoyed about it. BTW, your response isn't enlightening or
: constructive either.
<quote>
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss,
while a mighty wind swept the waters.
Then God said, "Let there be plates" and there were plates.
God saw how good the plates were.
God then lifted from the surface of the plates the studs.
The plates with the studs God called Lego,
and everything else he called Building Space for Lego.
His mother turned out the light and said "Its late, go to sleep."
- the first day.
</quote>
If you think this isn't tongue-in-cheek, your sense of humor
dried up and you need an immediate visit to your local pub.
DLC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark (970)898-4313 email d...@fc.hp.com |
| Hewlett Packard Ft. Collins NSD Ft. Collins CO 80525 |
KC
<01bc3e0c$20875140$0200000a@ron>:
>Obviously you did not read the rest of his post. I'm just as insulted at
>Christianity being thrown in my face all the time as the next Atheist but
>even I thought his improvement of the Genesis text was funny. I even
>forwarded a copy to my equally anti-religious brother and he liked it as
>well.
OK folks, we're really 'beating a dead horse' here.
I'm well aware of what was in the post; I just didn't think it was funny.
I think humour based on one's hobby is usually corny, but maybe that's
just me. To each, his or her own. Shall we move on?
Larry Pieniazek
> OK folks, we're really 'beating a dead horse' here.
> I'm well aware of what was in the post; I just didn't think it was funny.
> I think humour based on one's hobby is usually corny, but maybe that's
> just me. To each, his or her own. Shall we move on?
KC, I think not. Your initial response to the post was: (quoting)
>I know there's a disclaimer in the subject header, but do we really need to
>discuss religion in this newsgroup? Isn't that what alt.christnet et al are
>for?
I really fail to see how a gentle parody of Genesis is a discussion of
religion.
Several other posters pointed that out to you and you retreated into
saying you didn't think it was a funny parody. Don't squirm away like
that. (1) Whether you thought it was funny or not is not germane to your
original statement/attack. When someone called you on THAT, you claimed
we are beating a dead horse without addressing that point either. Don't
squirm away like that. (1)
RTL is fairly peaceful in comparision with most usenet groups (2). We'd
like to keep it that way. Please consider not trolling flamebait if you
would, thanks.
1 - I note that in the other minor flamewar you're in (3), you squirmed
away in essentially the same way. Twice.
2 - but not in comparision to Lugnet, of course.
http://www.lugnet.com/news
3 - the one that you instigated with "WTF".
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
lego fan
>KC wrote:
>
>> OK folks, we're really 'beating a dead horse' here.
>> I'm well aware of what was in the post; I just didn't think it was funny.
>> I think humour based on one's hobby is usually corny, but maybe that's
>> just me. To each, his or her own. Shall we move on?
>
>KC, I think not. Your initial response to the post was: (quoting)
>RTL is fairly peaceful in comparision with most usenet groups (2). We'd
>like to keep it that way. Please consider not trolling flamebait if you
>would, thanks.
Larry is correct - you are trolling and to people like me who read the
newsgroup for both information and a small dose of humor it is a nuisance.
You are really getting on my nerves with the ten or so posts with
ill-founded arguments and necessary foul-mouthedness (1,3). Why Larry has
sent you to Lugnet (2) I can't understand. But go there, and get flamed,
and possibly bombed, if you wish.
>1 - I note that in the other minor flamewar you're in (3), you squirmed
>away in essentially the same way. Twice.
>2 - but not in comparision to Lugnet, of course.
>http://www.lugnet.com/news
>3 - the one that you instigated with "WTF".
>
>--
>Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
>FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
>See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
>For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
>- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
>- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
>- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
--
Have fun!
John ( jdiri...@email.msn.com ) remove NOSPAM:
John's Lego Web Trade Page:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU--
#+++++ S LSź Hy? M+ A+++ LM-- IC12m
Larry Pieniazek
> Why Larry has
> sent you to Lugnet (2) I can't understand.
That wasn't for KC, that was a billboard for the drive-by
rubberneckers.(1)
1 - gentle reader... you've slowed down to watch a flamewar, haven't
you? :-) It's OK, you can come clean.
Richard
every possible sensibility - sorry I offended yours.
Lego is just play. Its gotten a bit overwhelming these days, and I find it
popping up all over my mindset. And late at night, all sorts of things look
like good ideas. In the cold hard unblinking light of day some of them are
pretty terrible.
In the meantime, I'm off to play some more! :-)
Gus Altobello, Jr.
[...]
> > Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
> > Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
>
> Has anyone ever read The Bible?
Yeah, but they're doing their best by their actions to disguise that
fact...
-gus
Lord Insanity
>
> Lord Insanity wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
> >
> > Has anyone ever read The Bible?
>
> Bible. What's your point? (I may just be showing my biblical
> ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
My appologies for not responding right away. I was referring to reading
the Bible with regard to "gay pride" issues and its supposed corruption
of the color purple. The specific verse I was thinking of (now I am not
saying one should actually follow through with this) was: Leviticus
(Spelling?) ch.20 vs. 13 "If a man lies with mankind as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have commited an abomination, they shall surely be
put to death, their blood shall be upon them."
I am not trying to convert anyone, nor suggest this is an appropriate
course of action. I just felt an explaination of my first statement was
in order after seeing the thread that followed all this.
As for trustworthy: My real name is Mike Petrucelli. Currently reside
near Montgomeryville, PA in the USA. Whether you belive me or not, my
conscience does not allow me to be untrustworthy.
--
-Lord Insanity
"A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men"
Visit me at: http://members.tripod.com/~LordInsanity
Lord Insanity
>
> s'funny I was thinking of purple lego bricks before this thread
> began.that's why it caught my intrest. lego has expanded the range of
> colors so much in the past few years (I love the dark grey and
> sand-colored bricks we can get now. :-) and now, shop at home has bulk
> green bricks for the first time. with the new star wars sets there are
> orange pieces & mini -figs. and the upcoming rock raiders theme has the
> orange mini-figs and turqoise pieces -- a color introduced in the
> cyber-slam theme. also introduced in cyber-slam were the notorious
> purple lego pieces. I figure it's just a matter of time and an
> appropiate theme till purple bricks become a reality. I personally am
> looking forward to that day. a futuristic space theme would be cool.....
> :-) later, y'all
> --- craigo-lego
Is that color in the cyper-slam sets considered purple. Ick. As I said
before, we need a nice vivid imperial violet fit to be called lego
purple.
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> OK folks, we're really 'beating a dead horse' here.
I think you're the only one beating said horse.
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> >
> > Lord Insanity wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
> > > > Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever read The Bible?
> >
> > I know people who are normally trustworthy who claim to have read the
> > Bible. What's your point? (I may just be showing my biblical
> > ignorance, but is purple significant somehow?)
>
> My appologies for not responding right away. I was referring to reading
> the Bible with regard to "gay pride" issues and its supposed corruption
OK, got it.
> I am not trying to convert anyone, nor suggest this is an appropriate
> course of action. I just felt an explaination of my first statement was
> in order after seeing the thread that followed all this.
OK, thanks.
> As for trustworthy: My real name is Mike Petrucelli. Currently reside
> near Montgomeryville, PA in the USA. Whether you belive me or not, my
> conscience does not allow me to be untrustworthy.
I didn't mean to imply that you were not, merely that I trust that some
people have read the bible - an answer to your first question.
Christopher L. Weeks
> > > Maybe Lego doesn't want to support
> > > Gay Pride issues by supporting the color purple.
> >
There could be a new company making clone bricks...Lezbo. Making bricks
only in gay pride colors. Now that would be a hoot.
(I'm thinking that I may have stepped on the toes of both the simpletons
who think gays are evil and the gays themselves with this post, that
would be quite nice.)
Dennis Clark
: Sometimes I forget that in this day and age we have to take into account
: every possible sensibility - sorry I offended yours.
De nada! At least for me, I'm an agnostic and thought it was worth
a chuckle, but then again, I don't insist on everything being PC either...
DLC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark (970)898-4313 email d...@fc.hp.com |
KC
It's obvious that I need to justify my actions, so I will respond and I will
*not* back down on this.
As I look at this topic in retrospect, perhaps I took the post too seriously.
I wasn't in the best of moods when I decided to reply, so my followup post was
admittedly made in haste. I'm well aware of the humdrum aspects of everyday
life and we all seek ways to lighten things up, one of these being the parody
of Genesis (by Richard, I think). Folks accused me of not fully reading the
post, but that wasn't the case. Regrettably, I should have paid more
attention to the post's contents before firing off my reply. Therefore, if
Richard was the original poster, I apologize for the wrongful accusation.
You're just trying to inject some humour in the newsgroup, and although it
wasn't my 'cup of tea', you've brought laughter to others and that's the
bottom line.
You, however, are a different issue. You've made a wealth of accusatory
statements regarding my character and this I won't stand for. I don't need to
justify myself to you, but since you've taken this to a personal level, I will
stand my ground.
If it's one thing I truly resent and despise is anyone labelling me a 'troll'.
I'm well aware of its definition. Is my purpose for being here simply to lurk
and instigate flamewars? Absolutely *NOT*!! I came here because I was
searching for info on LEGO and to engage in what I call 'lively' discussions.
You're free to disagree with anything I say and you're more than entitled to
your opinion - about the subject. I take exception to name-calling, as well I
should. Did I skirt the issue? Maybe. As I stated, I made my initial reply
in haste and it is now retracted. Folks suggested that I look back over the
original post, and that's what I did.
Regarding the 'other flamewar': that one I make no apologies for. It should
have been taken to private e-mail, but that was a lapse in judgment. Someone
else interjected and it was reduced to a shouting match. Unless you had a
personal stake in the subject, that has no bearing on the subject at hand. I
did *NOT* squirm away from that topic at all - get your facts straight!
As for the religion issue...
You know *NOTHING* about my personal background, especially my religious
upbringing or current beliefs (or lack thereof). I have been perusing and
contributing info and insight on the Star Wars newsgroups for over 3 years and
kept a close eye on its evolution (or disintegration, depending on one's
viewpoint). There has been a surge in the inclusion of religion as part of
the subject, whether as a parody, a fleeting mention or the central issue.
These I've grown tired of, and have placed in killfiles. Suddenly religion
pervades almost every newsgroup in some aspect and only so much can be ignored
before it passes my level of tolerance. There are a few atheists and
agnostics who have made their point known on the subject and I'll respect
their willingness to tolerate its brand of humour. The number of people who
are open to and accepting of religiously-based humour will outweigh the
minority, but that doesn't mean they should be excluded. I will admit that I
take some things too seriously, but that's me. Killfile me for all I care, as
long as you know the facts (which, given by your posts, you obviously don't).
I used an expletive once and I'm being branded as 'foul-mouthed'; truly, a
testament to one's irrationality and ignorance (this is directed to John aka
'lego fan'). How neatly and conveniently we coin those around us without due
regard for the truth. If I follow your line of thinking, you next step would
be to label me a 'hypocrite'. FYI, I never instigated the 'ninja crap'
debate. As far as responses go, let's just say that I'll 'return the favour'.
This wasn't what I expected when I arrived here, but it may be too late to
turn back the clock. A fresh start would be nice, but that appears to be out
of the question. If you want to pack your gloves, fine: I'm standing my
ground.
Larry Pieniazek <lp...@IWANTNOSPAM.ctp.com> wrote in
<3702CBD0...@voyager.net>:
>I really fail to see how a gentle parody of Genesis is a discussion of
>religion.
>Several other posters pointed that out to you and you retreated into
>saying you didn't think it was a funny parody. Don't squirm away like
>that. (1) Whether you thought it was funny or not is not germane to your
>original statement/attack. When someone called you on THAT, you claimed
>we are beating a dead horse without addressing that point either. Don't
>squirm away like that. (1)
>
>RTL is fairly peaceful in comparision with most usenet groups (2). We'd
>like to keep it that way. Please consider not trolling flamebait if you
>would, thanks.
>
Larry Pieniazek
KC wrote:
>
> Alright, if this is how you wish to play....
<snip>
You're missing the point. I *don't* wish to play and neither do most of
the other regulars here. If you want to discuss LEGO, please do so. If
you want to pick fights, go somewhere else, please.
KC
>You're missing the point. I *don't* wish to play and neither do most of
>the other regulars here. If you want to discuss LEGO, please do so. If
>you want to pick fights, go somewhere else, please.
This has and was my intention all along. I'm ready to move on (and don't
accuse me of 'backing down' again either). I took exception to some posts
and made my opinion known. Obviously others have made theirs known as
well, and they're all taken into consideration. There was indiscretion
and lapse of judgment on my part, but I'm willing to let bygones be
bygones.
It's going to be difficult to gain the respect and trust of those on this
NG in light of recent events, and whether you choose to ignore or forgive,
I'll leave that to the individual. I can't ask for more at this time.
For those I offended, I sincerely apologize for my remarks. I'll just
leave it at that.
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> There was indiscretion
> and lapse of judgment on my part, but I'm willing to let bygones be
> bygones.
Great, everyone's happy.
> It's going to be difficult to gain the respect and trust of those on this
> NG in light of recent events, and whether you choose to ignore or forgive,
> I'll leave that to the individual. I can't ask for more at this time.
> For those I offended, I sincerely apologize for my remarks. I'll just
> leave it at that.
There are some people around here who would truely have a hard time
gaining respect because of their long history of questionable behavior.
But, if you've only stepped in it a couple of times, and now mostly talk
about Lego, post URLs of some of your cool models, engage in trades and
auctions, talk about department store sales, etc, a few mistakes are
forgiven of everyone around here. This really is about the best place
on Usenet.
Only if you're a jerk to the core (and I'm not trying to imply that I
think this) would you have a hard time getting along here and letting
this fall to the past.
--
My $.02, brought to you for free,
dir...@gmail.com
> does anyone notice that lego does not have violet/purple bricks?
I also like purple bricks, see here www.purple-bricks.com