 | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Tom Stangl
|
| | | I don't think making a list will be a problem - I'm sure Todd could set up a voting page on Lugnet. Of course, we'd need a pre-voting page to vote on what should be voted on ;-) Ditto on the REAL train glass. Mike Poindexter wrote: I have an idea of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I bet any number of current "vote for best model/set/stuff" forms could be easily modified for this. That's a pretty exciting idea. (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | How about having a checkbox by each part in lugnet.cad.ldraw.parts.ref for voting? KL (...) what (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | | (...) be answered: If everyone gets one vote, and if 90% of the people are NOT train folks, I would assume that the train people are going to get out-voted. If voting were done by say - how many parts do you want of a particular piece, then you may (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Stephen F. Roberts
|
| | | | | (...) ...Seems reasonable... perhaps have the tally thing track actual parts wanted _and_ how many of each part potentially will be ordered... That information will likely be more useful to LEGO direct anyway. ...you can go back to ignoring me (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Besides that I think we might want to wait and hear more of what Brad has to say. He said he should get back to us in a couple of weeks to let use know more about how we help to decide which 12 or so special parts get to be (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Well said, Eric -- very well said! (...) I sure wouldn't waste a second of my time setting up something like that until it was clear from TLC _exactly_ what they wanted to know, and why I should want to do _their_ work for them. --Todd (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: an update -- and an apology —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Gary Istok (<38BBF30F.5B5ABBE@umich.edu>) wrote at 16:25:52 (...) From a commercial pov, the overheads on distributing to 20 people have got to be less than doing it for 80, so I know what I'd be tempted to do. But then again, (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
