 | | Re: LUGNET T-Shirts are in!
|
|
(...) First of all, I like the concept of the shirts. I used to wear my Green Day shirt everywhere back when they were nobodys, and then if someone recognized it, they knew that both of you had that rare thing in common. Lugnet shirts offer the same (...) (26 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET T-Shirts are in!
|
|
(...) Do the higher prices of the "art" designs seem offensive in any way, or just strange? Do they discourage purchasing of the lower-priced "standard" designs? How do people feel about the prices as a whole? Basically none of the shirts are (...) (26 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mousepad & Mug preview #2 (was: Re: LUGNET T-Shirts are in!)
|
|
(...) Hey, I'm using my landscape mousepad in a portrait configuration right now ;-). Why? Not enough space on my desk! Maybe I'll have to order one of these revolutionary mousepads!. FUT lugnet.off-topic.fun Eric Kingsley The New England LEGO Users (...) (26 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Mousepad & Mug preview #2 (was: Re: LUGNET T-Shirts are in!)
|
|
(...) Mostly for design/layout reasons in two of the three cases, but also because I've never understood why landscape mousepads even exist in the first place, not having ever met anyone who's had the horizontal room on their desk to use the pad in (...) (26 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
Yeah but you try finding what you want, from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't been here for very long and doesn't know how versatile Lugnet is, if only one could find what one wants in it ... Piece references seem to turn up in a lot of places (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
|
(...) I must chime in here... 'though it cert'nly isn't going to be at the top of his priorities now, I suppose. (uh-oh... Jeremy, you're steeling my a's 'gain, huh? ;-) <snip> That would be great... whoa. That would be just *fabulous*. I can't wait (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
|
(...) (even though I know Todd is a particularly busy person, and has many other probably more important hot-item issues to work on...) Me too! I'm getting more and more excited about the potential for a portalized LUGNET, since we're starting work (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
(...) True - but that would take a lot of combined effort. The question is, do we need a temporary solution *until* there's a permanent, searchable db? (...) Uh, probably he has other things on his mind right now, see (URL) (...) Yeah - they don't (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
(...) You didn't mention FUT, so I'm ignoring this bit. (...) I'd rather not see db.inv's charter changed. I think a new group would be better. Actually, the true, proper solution is a queryable database. Maybe that's why Todd Lehman is staying out (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote: (about the various groups under discussion) (...) The thing is, all the groups (.cad.dat.parts, .db.brictionary, .db.inv, and .db.scans) are very clear-cut in their purposes, and none of them are in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
