Subject:
|
Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.scans
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:09:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1857 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Marchetti wrote in message ...
> 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 okay with that since they view the
> instructions to be something they DO indeed want consumers to be able to • get a
> hold of. Why they don't set up a scans and parts server of their own is
> anyone's guess, but its still a good idea.
>
> How many times has one wondered whether a set does indeed have some
> interesting part where only having the instructions scans or the set itself
> would ultimately reveal the truth of it?
>
> I am not trying to tell anyone what to do -- but provided Lego doesn't • care;
> why the self-imposed restriction when there is a benefit to be had from • making
> the scans available instead?
>
> Frankly, I do see it as a kind of advertising for sets that I might not
> otherwise buy...
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
1997.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
