Subject:
|
Re: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:13:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
847 times
|
| |
|
|
Ah, I see what caused my problems and confusion.
For some strange reason, it's not considering this below as part of the
header, and therefore thinks it should reply back to you ... Now all I need
is a better mail client. :)
I've CC'ed this to the lugnet server, I'm not sure if it'll get through
though.
Apologies to everyone on the list, but this has been driving me nuts.
Steve, maybe if you can get the lugnet server to insert a Reply-To: line,
and use lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com as what it replies to in the header info,
I can reply via this email client, otherwise I shall have to get another
one. ;-)
Cheers...
Geoffrey Hyde
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net>
To: lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>
Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 11:50 PM
Subject: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
> I was looking at this part some more, and wondering: are there two
> different versions of this piece, are does this part-file contain some
> serious design errors?
>
> All the RL examples of this element in my possession have a technic-stud
> on one side and a flat back. The 3900.dat file shows a technic-stud on
> the front, a tube on the back, and a hole (looks like radius=4) through
> the studs.
>
> Steve
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
