 | | Re: fixed part: JW's parts —Roy Earls
|
| | | onyx wrote in message ... (...) tile (...) went (...) RL (...) LDraw (...) to be Onyx, You may disagree, but you restate my own objection perfectly. Your example of 3068 is "perfect" "as far as I'm concerned". It shows your personal standards and (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: fixed part: JW's parts —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I'd say the bar should be set at whatever level that the majority of the part authors and other longtime users think it should be set. If that is an unreasonable level... well, tough. (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: fixed part: JW's parts —Roy Earls
|
| | | | Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Mike, you "absolutely" missed the point. Everything you wrote is reasonable, except for the last two, but to my knowledge there is not a consensus on what is reasonable. If I'm to believe that all parts in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: fixed part: JW's parts —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) No, I had no desire to play semantics with you and debate whether or not any part needs to be "absolutely perfect". I never used those words. What I meant to make clear, and what I think anyone with two neurons to rub together would have (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: fixed part: JW's parts —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) But your horse doesn't poop all over the public parks. --Todd (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
