Subject:
|
Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:06:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2174 times
|
| |
|
|
At 09:35 PM 4/12/99 +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> At 09:16 PM 4/12/99 +0000, Sproaticus wrote:
> > If the .cad.dat group were segregated into .cad.dat.parts (or whatever :-),
> > with the intention that the .cad.dat.parts is just for LDraw parts updates,
> > then I would go along with the suggestion of removing his posting privs from
> > that group until his mentor okays it. JW could still be allowed to post his
> > MOPs, but not as offical parts until the group agrees on it.
>
> Or there could even be .... [snipped sarcastic jab on my part]
I apologize for this comment. I realize that it was completely uncalled
for and terribly degrading and cheap in nature. Jonathan and all; please
forgive me for my unnecessary comment. I will work to have my original
post cancelled.
Keep Building!!
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
You've seen their sites and read their posts, now see their faces:
RTL/LUGNET Legofest 1999: http://www.zacktron.com/legofest/
LEGO: SP++++c(6973)[ip++++ bt2++++ ex+++ ft+++ sp+++ ut++]
AQ+++(6175)[an+++ as++ hn-- sr--] TO++[ob+ dv+ tc-- tt-- tjr.---] TC++ CA+
PI+ BV--- DU--- HM--- S+ LS>+++ #++++ Hal M+ A+ YB82m
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
| (...) Is this an attempt to model part #30014? If so, it is incorrect in at least three very obvious ways -- (a) the vertical placement of ARM1.DAT, (b) the use of ARM1.DAT in the first place, and (c) the use of 3004.DAT, where a new element should (...) (27 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
