 | | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote: [...] (...) For the record Kevin, I strongly respect your position on this. -Suz. (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) You should trade the work back to them for $500K in bulk ordered specialty parts -- and then share it with all of us member lugnuts. In all honesty, it would be fair... -- Richard (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) Forgive me if my memory is faulty -- but I thought it was you, Kevin, who interpreted a statement of Brad Justus' to mean that up to the present/current scans were okay. I think it was stated in one of those tedious threads about the Huw (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) The original purpose of the scans archive was as an historical archive. (...) It would cost them well over $500K, perhaps $1.5M do do it themselves. (...) I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands unless TLC offers (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Richard Marchetti wrote in message ... (...) disregard (...) get a (...) care; (...) making (...) Exactly. If Lego has a problem they will let it be known. At the very least, how about some 1998 scans? www.brickshelf.com still says no scans after (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
