 | | Re: Question on 8277 Inventory —Kim Toll
|
| | | Robert Munafo wrote in message ... (...) this: (...) ... (...) ... (...) sub-box (...) the (...) the (...) inventory (...) I'd say no, there's no standard. For my inventories, I just count the parts for the whole set. That's the compromise I made a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question on 8277 Inventory —John Cromer
|
| | | | | I pretty much follow the "hints" found on Todd's LUGNET inventory page: (URL) Number #8 If they are boxed separately, I inventory them separately, but in general, I don't keep track of individual bag contents. (Haven't been posting much lately for a (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question on 8277 Inventory —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd rather have the inventory listings, without the numbers, than not have the listings at all. Anyone who is going to use other people's inventory lists is going to quickly get used to having to translate heavily. I was working on an (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question on 8277 Inventory —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | (...) I follow all the "hints" given on the page (URL) as if they were a standard, even though they aren't (-: (...) I pretty much agree, in that I can't figure out any really "good reason" for the practice, but I do it anyway because it's in the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| | | | |
