Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Legends
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2001 05:55:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
193 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Gaurav Thakur writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.technic, Steve Lane writes:
> > >
> > > All these numbers are very confusing, apart from 8462 I don't know the
> > > numbers of any sets and can't be arsed to look them up. Can't people use the
> > > proper names?
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Where's the hassle cutting & pasting a few lines into the Lugnet search • window?
> > You get a nice picture of each set (usually) which is worth 1000 words. If • you
> > "can't be arsed to look them up", why should you expect others to aid your
> > laziness?
>
> Okay I will start doing this in my posts from now on. I actually memorized
> all the Technic set numbers some time ago (result of staring at Technic
> catalogs for years; hehe I'm a nut :-) ) and keep thinking that everyone
> else has done the same, so I haven't done it any of my existing posts so far.
Gaurav,
This comment was actually directed at Steve. I think it's fine to just post the
set numbers. I only know about a dozen technic sets by number, but I don't mind
typing a number I don't know into the Lugnet search. As I said, you can enter a
list of numbers, and you get a picture of each one - it's very handy. I don't
see why Steve has a problem with it.
Regards
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO Legends
|
| (...) Okay I will start doing this in my posts from now on. I actually memorized all the Technic set numbers some time ago (result of staring at Technic catalogs for years; hehe I'm a nut :-) ) and keep thinking that everyone else has done the same, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
