Jump to content

Photo

Lego Rock raiders. First sight of the future?

Solved

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16
jamesster

jamesster

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
Interesting science, but largely unrelated to the original question of if it's somehow a prototype of something that came nine years earlier (heck, even the topic title asks if it's the "First sight of the future"). I'm also not seeing how this is topic worthy, seems more like something you'd see in a blog or even a status update.

Also, the 1990 ghost minifigure having the first glow in the dark LEGO piece is an incredibly common piece of LEGO trivia, which is probably where the "kids these days" comments came from - its just one of those things most older LEGO fans know.

#17
Cyrem

Cyrem

    Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,839 posts

Interesting science, but largely unrelated to the original question of if it's somehow a prototype of something that came nine years earlier (heck, even the topic title asks if it's the "First sight of the future"). I'm also not seeing how this is topic worthy, seems more like something you'd see in a blog or even a status update.

 

It was a question. He was asking if LRR was the first to have these parts that he thought 'glowed'. The science is very much related because it is the reason he thought they were glowing. Even though he was wrong about the glowing and when LEGO started making transparent parts, it in no way makes the topic less 'worthy' then any other topic on the forum. This topic not only answered his question, but gave anyone who didn't know about "total internal reflection" an education.



#18
jamesster

jamesster

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts


It was a question. He was asking if LRR was the first to have these parts that he thought 'glowed'. The science is very much related because it is the reason he thought they were glowing. Even though he was wrong about the glowing and when LEGO started making transparent parts, it in no way makes the topic less 'worthy' then any other topic on the forum. This topic not only answered his question, but gave anyone who didn't know about "total internal reflection" an education.


The science is somewhat related, educational, and interesting indeed, but the main question's answer is more about a prototype than the science from how I understood it. And the topic's "worthiness" has nothing to do with dates or glowing like you're implying, it's simply that it seems rather obscure and out of place for a main forum post, especially in its original fan fiction location.

#19
Cyrem

Cyrem

    Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,839 posts

The science is somewhat related, educational, and interesting indeed, but the main question's answer is more about a prototype than the science from how I understood it. And the topic's "worthiness" has nothing to do with dates or glowing like you're implying, it's simply that it seems rather obscure and out of place for a main forum post, especially in its original fan fiction location.

 

Had the parts not looked like they were glowing or had he known about total internal reflection, this topic would not have existed. The 'science' is what prompted him to think "Are they early versions?", he just didn't know it. As Fan Fic and Theme Discussion are right on top of each other, posting this in the wrong forum is completely possible. The content of the post is what matters anyway, not the location. This is certainly not the first theory that has been posted, so I don't understand why certain ones are treating this guy differently simply based on his lack of knowledge or a misplaced topic.

 

I don't know a lot about LEGO compared to members here, I didn't know about "first glow in the dark LEGO" which is a "incredibly common piece of LEGO trivia"... I didn't even know LEGO produced glow-in-the-dark pieces altogether. Regardless, I don't think the "kids these days" (or in my case "Adults these days") comment is appropriate if it's based on how much you know about LEGO.



#20
jamesster

jamesster

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts


Had the parts not looked like they were glowing or had he known about total internal reflection, this topic would not have existed. The 'science' is what prompted him to think "Are they early versions?", he just didn't know it. As Fan Fic and Theme Discussion are right on top of each other, posting this in the wrong forum is completely possible. The content of the post is what matters anyway, not the location. This is certainly not the first theory that has been posted, so I don't understand why certain ones are treating this guy differently simply based on his lack of knowledge or a misplaced topic.


Agreed on the science bit. As for the generally negative reaction, I'd say it's probably more due to a combination of things than just one - the awkward and uninformed content, the misplacement, and how he tried using a topic honoring the death of a major LEGO employee to advertise his fan fiction (which is hosted on the LEGO Message Boards, which have quite a reputation among the fan-operated LEGO forums for having a terrible community composed almost entirely of younger kids) all around the same time didn't add up to a pretty picture, and his other post here certainly didn't help.
  • Lair thanked this

#21
Ben24x7

Ben24x7

    Gold Raider

  • Gold Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts

Jamesster, I called this "First sight of the future" because I didn't know that the ghost minifigure 'hat' in the classic castle theme (or was it something else?) glowed in the dark. This topic and all the info wouldn't exist if I knew this beforehand.  -.- *Slaps head multiple times in anger*  >:(



#22
JimbobJeffers

Jamesster, I called this "First sight of the future" because I didn't know that the ghost minifigure 'hat' in the classic castle theme (or was it something else?) glowed in the dark. This topic and all the info wouldn't exist if I knew this beforehand.  -.- *Slaps head multiple times in anger*  > :(

 

It's alright, as Cyrem said it's fine that you didn't know about the ghost figure's glow-in-the-dark features, and you were unfairly treated in response. You don't need to be angry, what was that saying? "He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever." Not that you're a fool of course ;)

 

You've learnt something new, that's great, plus you now know that in future a little bit of independent research can also help!


  • jamesster thanked this

#23
jamesster

jamesster

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts

the ghost minifigure 'hat' in the classic castle theme (or was it something else?)

Crusaders and Black Knights. "Classic castle" typically refers to the theme from 1978 to 1983, before the split into multiple factions in 1984.

You've learnt something new, that's great, plus you now know that in future a little bit of independent research can also help!

This.

#24
BobaFett2

BobaFett2

    Game Design Student

  • Silver Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Sorry for being condescending.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Solved