 | | Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Hey y'all and especially Kevin: If I am wrong as to some very important particular issue here, just disregard the following... ...but why don't we, or Kevin, bring the BrickShelf scans current to the present date? Its my understanding that Lego is (...) (25 years ago, 3-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)
|
| |
| | 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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)
|
