|
|
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| I agree totally with Robert...Which brings me, once again, to point out an address EVERYONE should look at. Todd is, in my opinion, trying the best he can to *follow* the words in this website: (URL) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:00:41 GMT, "Robert M. Dye" <robdye@writeme.com> wrote: . (...) They'd be in their rights to demand it. It would not happen. The web simply doesn't work that way. Did you miss the dozens of posts screaming "someone email me the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| This is my last word in this thread. God grant I'm not tempted to break that. ---...--- (...) So...what...? Since you did not write it, it was not rude? My original post on this topic was not addressed to you. I said, speaking in general to the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
| (...) Ah, but the thing is, except for second-hand, we'll never be able to undercut Lego from the things _new_: bulk parts, and the hypothetical free copying of current instructions. You see, Set-breakers exist now. What do you think they do with (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Enough already
|
| Just another minor point here and I'm really just nitpicking so don't sweat it... (...) True. We've had people who said they were designers, people who related experiences working in a model shop, we sometimes have lurkers from various departments (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
