Subject:
|
Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.scans
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:41:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2060 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.db.scans, Kevin Loch writes:
> I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands
> unless TLC offers guidance to the contrary.
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 Millington scans of some months back -- something like that...
But okay, whatever.
-- Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
