 | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) :) Um, I didn't know there was a thing out there for MOC bricks.. interesting... (...) Yep, I don't mean any offense either, and I agree with you Todd. (...) Another good idea.. group, lets keep the creative juices flowing.. Ldraw Consortium? (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I think it would be great -- I don't know of any existing restrictions other than the possibility that no one has published their efforts in this regard. I would be more receptive to other brand-name parts than to mangled pieces, however -- (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) So would I (personally). (...) Me too. In fact, I would take a stronger position against clone bricks than against purely-MOC bricks. This isn't to suggest that every official TLG element is a fragrant flower, but IMHO all clone elements are (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
(...) The ml isn't currently gatewayed with the ng. A gateway could always be established, however, if the need arose. (...) It is (or at least was a few minutes ago) when you sent out your other message. --Todd (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) You did a good job of it, though I don't think you'll like the replies from people (personal prediction). (...) I would personally severely disapprove. Though it could be argued to include clone bricks (which your described part would fall (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
We're not gatewayed, right? That is, I got a message from L-CAD@LISTSERV.UH.EDU that I replied to and I went to the people still subscribed to the list, but it did not appear here. That's what I expected would happen if we weren't gatewayed. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Non-TLG Parts
|
|
I'm not sure how the best way to broach this subject, but to jump head first best. First, I have wondered how the community feels about the creation of non-standard parts. By this I mean parts that TLG has not created ( at least not to my knowledge (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
But can we set the l.c.d for a Digest? I preferred the LCAD list in Digest form, this Live Feed is driving me nuts. I already get 100+ emails/day at home, and 3-900/day at work. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) have (...) Would this be visible to a visitor accessing ldraw.org? It would be very nice if the URL in the text box on a browser stayed at ldraw.org instead of making the visitor think thye had the wrong address. --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) For the site discussion, I think a temporary (or permanent if you desire) group name would be most appropriately: lugnet.cad.dev.site, denoting the site for the .dev group.. (...) Whoa! If I had $$ I would probably use that group too.. Keep (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
