 | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
|
(...) Like, right underneath the logo-bar. How about: "This site is better than official! It's [fan created], and The LEGO Group has nothing to do with!" Steve (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FA : SOCCER SETS AND SUB-SETS (all new misp/misb)
|
|
(...) I never said it was your intention to deceive. I just think the implied attitude behind "anyone with a clear understanding of English" is a little misplaced, given the fact that your eBay description is NOT crystal clear. If it were, you (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
|
(...) GNU free, or just no-price? It could have been worse--it could have only run on a BeBox. Steve (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Nugator.com - New Lego Retail Super Site
|
|
(...) I think the idea is that it is a monthly fee, not yearly; hence, if you wished to get a discount on something, or just wanted to be part of a contest than ran for a month or two, you'd have to pay the $5.00 fee for that month. Also, if it is (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: FA : SOCCER SETS AND SUB-SETS (all new misp/misb)
|
|
Last week I had a bidder with a rating of -1. That did worry me, I must admit. Then after a day or so he got some feed back, so his rating was boosted to zero. He was outbid in the end. -- Scott A Edinburgh, Scotland. (URL) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | 3011 Duplo Brick 2 x 4 [DAT]
|
|
0 Duplo Brick 2 x 4 0 Name 3011.dat 0 Author: Steve Bliss 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Un-Official Part 1 16 40 4 0 2 0 0 0 -9.5 0 0 0 2 stud4.dat 1 16 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 -9.5 0 0 0 2 stud4.dat 1 16 -40 4 0 2 0 0 0 -9.5 0 0 0 2 stud4.dat 1 16 0 48 0 76 0 0 (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 3437 Duplo Brick 2 x 2 [DAT]
|
|
The Duplo Terror has begun! <gg> 0 Duplo Brick 2 x 2 0 Name 3437.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Un-Official Element 1 16 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 -9.5 0 0 0 2 stud4.dat 1 16 0 48 0 36 0 0 0 -44 0 0 0 36 box5.dat 4 16 40 48 40 36 48 36 -36 48 36 -40 48 40 4 16 (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
|
(...) The more I think about it, I think a simple letter would do. But first I think we should experiment a bit with different logos and present them printed on the letter so they can review them right there and state their preference. Once I get (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
|
(...) On the small logos it probably would not work, so another solution would have to be devised for that. (...) I'd prefer to keep it red. I don't think a wireframe fade would be considered under TLG's trade dress if a squabble arose. (...) I (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: FA : SOCCER SETS AND SUB-SETS (all new misp/misb)
|
|
(...) So am I...to a point...$40 for empty boxes...I'd start having my doubts. Unfortunately, I've been left hanging more than a few times by those with no feedback. Good luck to you. Julie He/she is (...) (27 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
