Subject:
|
RE: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:53:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<william@howard-family.SPAMLESSfsworld.co.uk>
|
Viewed:
|
954 times
|
| |
|
|
How about lugnet.train.bridges.technic.truss.connection-problems for the
newsgroup?
:-))
W
-----Original Message-----
From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com]On Behalf
Of Tobbe Arnesson
Sent: 15 March 2002 15:46
To: lugnet.technic@lugnet.com
Subject: Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:16:32 GMT, "Thomas Avery"
<thomas.avery@intec-hou.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > And BTW bridges should be .train or something, it's not Technic!
> > *joking*
> > /Tobbe
>
> LOL
>
> Hey! Do you want to start another flame-war? ;-)
cp lugnet.train sure, why not .) (still kidding)
> I've wondered about this myself. I think bridges are of interest to both • groups.
>
> My bridge is made of mostly Technic parts, and my question was about
> construction technics involving Technic parts.
Yes, but does it qualify as technic when nothings moving? :)
> Maybe bridges belong somewhere else altoghether. Do you think we need a
> .build.bridges newsgroup?
Nah, don't think there are enough bridge builders as of yet.
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
| (...) cp lugnet.train sure, why not .) (still kidding) (...) Yes, but does it qualify as technic when nothings moving? :) (...) Nah, don't think there are enough bridge builders as of yet. /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
