 | | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) I thought that I was answering David's e-mail to my e-mail address. Sorry, I am not too sure how to do all these tree things here and there. It wasn't you, It was mad David. John P (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote: <Snip other peoples comments> (...) John, Does this mean that you are using instructions to build your inventories or are you using actual MISB set contents? The latter would be a lot more accurate, (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) That is a misleading story (go figure!) The overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq are positive, incouraged, and invested in their work. Many there are re-ups. Yeah, there will always be a few malcontents. But don't make the misteak in (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
--snip-- (...) Such a vast banquet of irony in so few words. (...) I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to show one of these 'emails with pictures' that you refer to? Since I don't remember ever sending you an email in (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you. Regardless of what the page number was, the inventory is incorrect. Valium might be in the future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down. Let's remove all (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, maybe. And then again (URL) maybe not.> Dave! (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) And yet one of the corrections you made has already been shown to be wrong and maybe a second one too (I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't). Most people might take that as a sign that possibly their checking wasn't quite as (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) Look at page 11 then, what I post here is quick, I sit for a very long time when I make the corrections and do not quote pages or steps. However you want to cut it, there are two tan bricks that are not in the inventory. That is the important (...) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
|
(...) Yes, it sure does. I rechecked it (page 7 that is), and I stand by my statement; no tan bricks. Perhaps your own inability to count has had a bad impact on the inventories you've made, and that's why they're not being accepted. David (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First post, NNTP-test
|
|
(...) And another Link-test: (URL) ...one (checking newlines that disappeared after the link) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, FTX)
|
| |
| | First post, NNTP-test
|
|
Just another boring test. One, two, three... or sumfn. Link-test: (URL) Image-test: (URL) (19 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) I'm intrigued, Jim, why this post in o-t.t? Was it a test, and you just wanted to write something in the body of the post other than the hackneyed "test"? Or did you get the group wrong? (It certainly seems neither to be off topic nor a test). (...) (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) I'm afraid that I must disagree, Mr. Crawford. Space!, Trains and Town are all way vooler IMHO. And easier to build MOCs in since they use liberal amounts of studded bricks and almost no panels. But I will keep this civil since you are (...) (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) Never mind. A good, stern lecture from a responsible adult should set things right. (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) Maybe he was sticking to LEGO-unique habits as opposed to generic ones (although I suspect festival muckraking is fairly generic to hobbies). Tim (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) You forgot to add "trolling" to the list. (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: ADDFOL
|
|
(...) HEY!! What's wrong with theme wars???...??? TECHNIC RULZ!!!!!! ROSCO (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test)
|
| |
| | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
|
(...) Although it would appear my terminology disagreed with my maths ;) So you are right in your reading and I am wrong in my concept but not my principal. So to keep the terminology the same just replace all 5s by 2s and the rest remains the same. (...) (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
|
(...) It's still an integer number of plates (which was my condition). Tim (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Timothy Gould wrote: (snip) (...) I'm not so sure about that... If I understand correctly, the main issue here is to produce a flat square surface with a non-integer number of studs as side, right? Because that is certainly (...) (19 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
