 | | Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
Hey folks, What is the limit to usage of lugnet.cad.dat? Is it considered unfair to post thirty models, or fifty, or a hundred? Or is that exactly what it's intended for? Here's what I'm thinking: I currently have 88 of my own models in LDraw, with (...) (26 years ago, 24-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) Put up thirty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, even ten thousand if they're all worth looking at. (...) Yup! (...) 88 models * 7 KB per model is two one-hundredths of one percent of the free disk space on the server. :) I'll buy more hard drives (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) Well, it's that "worth looking at" specification that's really arbitrary. :-, Especially with a couple of my models I'm pretty embarassed about... (...) Now that's tempting! You see, my HD at home is a little lacking in space now that I've (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) :-) I rarely see anyone using _that_ reference. Nothing like a good, vague reference. <g> -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) In what way was that vague? :-) _Moat_ is their finest work. Even the sequel is good. (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) It's probably vague in the sense of the ignorant and unforgiving way they handled my religion... :-P Still a good read, though. Although _Legacy of Heorot_ was better, IMO. Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message <36D58239.199CDB62@g...es.com>... (...) That was a great book. Better not screw with nature before you understand it. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) Not vague to _everybody_. But I am sure there are many who don't know it. Agreed, it is a good read. Sequels and all. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) That was a good one. That had a sequel as well, if I am not mistaken. And there was another book dealing with a different planetary system but I don't recall the exact name. "Destiny Road", maybe?. Not as good, at any rate. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) _Beowulf's Children_? Almost as good, but still just a sequel. I've been waiting for _Destiny Road_ for too long now. Ditto for _Ringoworld Throne_ or whatever. I've decided to stop following sequels, and go for fresh meat again. :-, One book (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) That's the one. (...) Waiting for it? I read it about a year ago. It was in my local library. (...) Yeah, lately I have been reading a lot of compilations. Mostly as a quick way of finding the good authors. I hate having to read an entire (...) (26 years ago, 27-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) Cheezy romance is an appropriate description. When the reader was given a play-by-play description of the hero's teen-age daughter's *legs* in running motion, twenty pages into the book, it set a tone that should've rather stayed in the (...) (26 years ago, 2-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) I was really disappointed with it. _LOH_ was so good - their best in my opinion - and _BC_ degraded to a kind of cheezy romance in a SF setting. I guess maybe it was better than that, but only just. The only thing about that book that engaged (...) (26 years ago, 2-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) Yeah! (Duh...) (...) I liked those too. Imaginitive macrofauna is always good. When I was thinking about the book earlier for that post, I didn't recall them at all, just the bees on crystal meth that I thought were kind of boring. (26 years ago, 2-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) IMO. (...) <whew> I had the same feeling about these two - first really good, 2nd only fair. I often wonder "am I the only one?" -- Steven | svore at mindspring .com | kf4fbk | TC++MS++#15LS+M+HalYB64m (26 years ago, 3-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use of lugnet.cad.dat
|
|
(...) With removed <html><i>speed</i></html> glands, if possible. (...) Ever read the short story about the planet "Meatball"? I loved it. Japser (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
