Subject:
|
Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.scans
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:10:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
SUZ@BASEPLATE.antispamCOM
|
Viewed:
|
2220 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote:
[...]
> I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands
> unless TLC offers guidance to the contrary.
>
> Of course for anything
> released in the past 5+ years they should be able to export jpegs/tiffs from
> whatever modeling or layout system they use. That would produce much
> more professional results than scanning (and would save an enormous ammount
> of time).
>
> KL
For the record Kevin, I strongly respect your position on this.
-Suz.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
