 | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| Tom McDonald wrote in message ... (...) rumors (...) wasn't (...) No, and not me either, must've been a scalper. (...) of (...) Yeah, probably, imagine how much time he must spend on his PC (or MAC). But perusing his collection couldn't be boring, (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) That makes two of us. If you include John, it might make three. ;) (...) But that's a *very* important thing. It's the first step in that 12-step program known as, "I could have my own TV show-aholics". You'd be surprised how many people in (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) That's OK, neither does he. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| John DiRienzo (jdiri14897@email.msn.com) wrote: : >The /inv part of lugnet is very cool for verifying completeness. I need to : >contribute as I get new sets. : I should do that, too. Maybe I will send him ALL the Castle inventories, : except for (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| Bill Katz wrote in message ... (...) to (...) inventories, (...) format. (...) No, no instructions to that as yet. Why, do you?? Want to trade? I guess I could look at the /inv site again, its been awhile and it was not very complete at the time. I (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) One problem I see with some of the inventories out there is that part numbers are not used when available. Also, there is not yet a good standard set of part descriptions. The result is that it may not be easy for someone who has a box of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| |
