 | | RE: Classic Space set design and building contest
|
|
(...) I understood that that wasn't the intention, it was just a great chance to give my hoaxing skills a shot. I don't think it fooled more than a couple people. (...) Aww, it's so much more fun that way :) (I only had one email asking me to scan (...) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | RE: Classic Space set 6888
|
|
(...) I was wondering how long it would take for you to note the lack of a disclaimer! :) And every day is April Fool's Day in my world... j/k (...) Thanks! Now I just need to try some alternates! Ack! --Bram Bram Lambrecht BXL34@po.cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | RE: Classic Space set 6888
|
|
(...) I take it that my model is too big to have a 688x number? Well, 6888 was the number I used for my Pentapterigoid fighter, so rather than looking up more numbers, I just used that. So I should try to remember that 6922, 6924, 6934-7, and 6944-8 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Classic Space set design and building contest
|
|
(...) Some people are taking the above a little more literally than I'd intended. I hadn't intended on encouraging hoax-style designs where people fake up catalog scans or instruction scans complete with realistic-looking set numbers -- although I'm (...) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Classic Space set 6888
|
|
Oh, BTW -- it's playing with fire to try to pick "realistic" set numbers unless you know the product line REALLY well. A set the size of the one you made would not have a number like 6888, but would have a number like 6924, 6936, or 6945. Put that (...) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.build.contests, lugnet.space)
|
