 | | Re: LUGNET Blurb (was Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
Well, we didn't finish this, did we? Here is a revised copy of the blurb incorporating all the changes I could find. Do people think with these revisions, it's good to go? -- start -- To fellow RTL'ers: There is another place to share the joy of (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
|
(...) Point taken, although I see nothing wrong with limiting it just to CLSotW winners, particularly since (with the 3/4 rule) that wouldn't even be a necessary qualification. But allowing the N page alternative, as if that were in some way (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Strange set spotted at Target
|
|
(...) My neighbor is the national rep for one of the major toy companies for the Target chain. Target "Strongly Urges" its major toy suppliers to repackage sets that they may have in excess inventory or that were not good sellers and then sell them (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
|
(...) Lego (...) After I posted this, I thought of another building criteria that is (IMO) very stringent - as per the above, but using no _more_ than n pieces. (...) want (...) Good question. I don't think it's something that needs 'proactive (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
|
(...) No, I don't. I agree with you that it should not be merit badge-ish. I tried to address this by a) offering alternatives: N pages OR CLSotW. You can win CLSotW with just one page if it's cool enough. (consider the CNC machine. That site was (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
