 | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) Yes we do, as shown by post (URL). Steve (24 years ago, 10-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) Heh. Yeah. Cross-posted to 4 groups because there isn't one group for it. Parts questions constantly pop up and they aren't likely to dry out at anytime. Just my 2 cents... (money's overrated anyway ;-) -Shiri (24 years ago, 10-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | And here in Aussie, we'd probably get 10% added onto that for GST because it's a 'service'. :) I think I should officially ask Todd Lehman (*invokes 'summon god' spell*) so that we may *all* have somewhere to post parts queries. How far off was I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) And what about the import tariffs? (...) Let's see... You posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.db.inv, and lugnet.db.scans. The charters for these groups are (actually, were, since I just jumped back to message: (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | XP .db.inv (...) <snip> I agree. Hmmm... I'm thinking something along the lines of slightly changing the charter for .db.inv (or alternatively, creating a new group). If the charter was changed from... (...) to, for example... : lugnet.db.inv: : (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | Uh... duh. I said XP, but didn't. :-) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.db.inv)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3t6mms4nv2q1fgv...4ax.com... (...) They'd probably be covered with the one cent GST adds to that because of rounding up to the nearest cent. :) (...) spell*) (...) was (...) Perhaps, but (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them? —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
