Subject:
|
Tower Building
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.uk
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:54:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Liam.Parnell@document.co.+avoidspam+uk
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
Tony wrote:
> > Three different size of sections would simplify the project, and
> > "heighten" the chances of success.
>
> Can you expand on this? Do you mean three mid-tower section sizes, plus
> a base and a top? This would make it easier for people to build
> sections they're comfortable with, but it's not simpler :-)
Oops, I was a bit confusing there. I meant what you said originally.
ie 3 types of section: base,mid and top. There can of course be
lots of mids. I will shut up now!
I meant it was simpler than my less specific scheme which would
allow a wider spectrum of section types. This might have been a bit too
ambitious in practice. I think it will be more suitable to the virtual
project.
> > I think it is a good idea.
> Well you would say that, wouldn't you :)
Ian thinks it is a bad idea!
--
Liam.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/liamp/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Tower Building
|
| On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Liam Parnell (<99100720152607.009...rrender2>) wrote at 18:54:53 (...) Righty ho. A base, middle sections and a top. Form an orderly queue :-) (25 years ago, 7-Oct-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
| | | Re: Tower Building
|
| (...) That was just my usual tongue-in-cheek banter. I was quite impressed by the ingenuity of the badges made last time around, and have a few tower ideas myself. 40*40 studs seems way too big though, surely. It would preclude most innovative (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
