| |
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:00:35 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> > I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately
> > from MOCs. You, Todd, could have
> >
> > lugnet.cad.dat.sets
> > lugnet.cad.dat.creations
> >
> > Which aren't completely self-obvious, but nothing's perfect.
>
> I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the
> letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and
> "creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :)
>
> OK, let's summarize all of the suggestions/possibilities presented so far:
<snipped "summary">
<following not to be taken seriously in any way>
Summarize? I started to read that "summary" and quickly sensed something
amiss. Glancing up at the subject header, I noted the length of the post - 186
lines. Whoa! That is one megamutha summary.
Next time I see Todd using the word "summarize", I fear I will approach reading
it with some trepidation. <g>
Perhaps next time you do such a "summary" it might best be described as:
"OK, let me present my doctoral dissertation on all of the
suggestions/possibilities presented so far:"
:-) :-) :-) :-) <---- lots of big smileys.
Todd, you are so _thorough_ it is frightening.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| (...) I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and "creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :) OK, let's summarize all of the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
