 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000 —Richard Franks
| | | | (...) Very possibly so, but it's still a bit disappointing! (...) I try to rarely address my comments specifically to one person - if I can I try to make it impersonal. So while I was replying to your post, I wasn't talking to you in particular. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000 —Tom Stangl
| | | | | | (...) I personally couldn't give a DAMN about the # of hits to my site, as my site already occasionally hits the limit, and I can't afford more bandwidth right now. I wanted (and got) the scans for my own personal use, to peruse and plan what sets (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000 —Jasper Janssen
| | | | | (...) Quite. But you do learn to live with it. As someone once said "Instant Access, Instant Idiot". (...) I wasn't feeling very forgiving at the time I wrote that[3], so that probably led to me seeing things that weren't intended. (...) Yup. That's (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | |
