 | | Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
|
(...) Ummm ok, but I think Dan really deserves the credit, (at least I assume since he did the "test" post, he is the one that fixed the error)... Oh wait, I get it.... Chris gets credit for EVERYTHING... duh me, how could I have forgotten, ruler of (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
|
Janey Cook wrote: SNIP I'm so happy to see Derek back to posting!!! (...) you can thank ME for that! Chris (20 years ago, 20-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: YOU CAN POST NOW
|
|
(...) keep it up wise guy and tug-o-war will be sept 30! :) Chris Leader of all that i can see (20 years ago, 20-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
|
(...) Ah, always the diplomat... I vote for both (as ~if~ my vote counts) even before seeing Calum's version (already saw Dereks) only cause I'm so happy to see Derek back to posting!!! Janey "Red Brick" (20 years ago, 19-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Realistic versus Iconic Trees...solved!
|
|
(...) Added to this debate is the fact there are currently only three "realistic" trees, but 12 iconic trees already build. Using one over the other leads to a very deforested city. Personally I think we should use both. The more trees the better. (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
