 | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Ouch! That certainly wasn't me, and I'd be willing to bet a red 2x4 it wasn't Mike Stanley either ;) (...) Yes, Todd has an amazing patience and thought-out methodology. One concern of mine is that I'll finally get to meet the Lehman's and (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Aww shucks, Tom, I couldn't fill your shoes.(1) James (URL) possibly with spamcake. ;-) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Out of all us Larritarians, Tom, I think *you're* the most brain-washed. I half-expect you to write "Mega-dittos from the West Coast, Lar" after each of his posts;-) -John "I'm too sexy for humor" Neal (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Thanks, Tom, but you of all people should know that looks aren't everything... :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Good advice. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) You can stop worrying on that account. They're not. Either that or I'm boring too and don't know it. But boringness is a fault, so that can't be it. :-) (...) Sounds like sour grape flavored spamcakes to me.... (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) Yeah, I'm just spouting off. It's just that it's amazing and rare to find someone who's so very computer literate with a projectable personality. It's nice to know they exist in greater numbers than I previously thought. But I ain't sayin (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to 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
|
| (...) Just twitting you... no appy-polly-logies needed, me droog. (1) 1 - Kubrik's second best movie, IMNSHO (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | 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)
| |
