Subject:
|
Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:54:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3t6mms4nv2q1fgv99cd3us9im7lo5ef3fo@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
>
> > And here in Aussie, we'd probably get 10% added onto that for GST because
> > it's a 'service'. :)
>
> And what about the import tariffs?
They'd probably be covered with the one cent GST adds to that because of
rounding up to the nearest cent. :)
> > 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 though in my xposts? I'm new to all this ...
>
> 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:
>
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts:
> Unofficial renderings of official LEGO® elements/parts in LDraw DAT
> format, plus any follow-up discussions directly relating to DAT
> content
>
> .cad.dat.parts wasn't the right place, since your question had nothing to
> do with representing LEGO parts in LDraw.
Perhaps, but I was trying to think, who would've seen these parts? Someone
who makes parts for LDRAW, would have had a very good chance of having seen
these parts.
> lugnet.db.brictionary:
> Discussions of parts nomenclature and taxonomy; planning for the
> LUGNET Brictionary, a comprehensive database of LEGO® elements.
>
> .db.brictionary isn't really the right place; I don't believe that
> Brictionary is intended to include a set-to-part crossreference (but I
> could be wrong on that).
I took a look, although not having seen the last part, I still thought 'Why
not?' It depends, really, on if they are wanting which-parts-in-what set
discussions ...
> lugnet.db.inv:
> Special data-oriented group for the storage and retrieval of parts
> inventories of LEGO® sets (one set per post); duplication of effort
> (multiple people inventorying the same set) is heartily encouraged • as
> a safety/redundancy check against errors/omissions
>
> Well, .db.inv is intended to be a place to post set-inventory lists, not • to
> ask questions about which sets included specific parts. But the purpose • of
> the group covers the data needed to answer your question.
Yes, this one is the closest to the one it should probably have gone into!
> lugnet.db.scans:
> Requests for, announcements of, and discussions about scanned images
> of official LEGO® publications for personal or archival and
> preservation purposes: building instruction booklets, catalogs, box
> flaps, other miscellaneous publications, etc.
>
> Erk. Again, .db.scans doesn't really have anything to do with finding
> specific pieces.
Maybe. But who else would have seen these specific pieces I'm after? And
the purpose of enquiring is to find out if you're in the right place for
that enquiry anyway, if you don't ask you'll never know.
> I think the proper group for asking "what set(s) contained pieces X, Y, • and
> Z" lies somewhere between lugnet.db.brictionary and lugnet.db.inv. There
> isn't an existing group for this purpose, so the only group where this
> question is on-topic is lugnet.general.
Probably, but I thought about posting here, and .general, but thought it was
*too* general - may have been lost in the discussion threads anyway, also
lately .admin.general is getting low on traffic ...
Lastly, charters are very nice and all that but they do tend to be boring,
reading-wise. If I fall asleep reading through the description, how am I
going to know for sure that it's the right place for it? I tend to skip
boring messages anyway.
Also, Outlook Express here has the ability to retrieve descriptions with the
names of the groups, but I'm not sure Todd has things set up that way?
A quick two-line header at the top of the post that describes the charter
accurately would be quite good and not a cure for insomnia!!
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
| (...) 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)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
