Subject:
|
Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.scans
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:24:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1745 times
|
| |
|
|
Hey y'all and especially Kevin:
If I am wrong as to some very important particular issue here, just disregard
the following...
...but why don't we, or Kevin, bring the BrickShelf scans current to the
present date?
Its my understanding that Lego is okay with that since they view the
instructions to be something they DO indeed want consumers to be able to get a
hold of. Why they don't set up a scans and parts server of their own is
anyone's guess, but its still a good idea.
How many times has one wondered whether a set does indeed have some
interesting part where only having the instructions scans or the set itself
would ultimately reveal the truth of it?
I am not trying to tell anyone what to do -- but provided Lego doesn't care;
why the self-imposed restriction when there is a benefit to be had from making
the scans available instead?
Frankly, I do see it as a kind of advertising for sets that I might not
otherwise buy...
-- Richard (still saying no to spell-checking)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
| Richard Marchetti wrote in message ... (...) disregard (...) get a (...) care; (...) making (...) Exactly. If Lego has a problem they will let it be known. At the very least, how about some 1998 scans? www.brickshelf.com still says no scans after (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
| | | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
| (...) The original purpose of the scans archive was as an historical archive. (...) It would cost them well over $500K, perhaps $1.5M do do it themselves. (...) I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands unless TLC offers (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
