 | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Right. And to make it work, it's not required that every group conform to some rigid standard (ala N-trak), although that gives you the most flexibility. *all* that is required is that a few modules from each layout can somehow interface, not (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Sounds good to me. You must have posted this while I was working on my own (somewhat more formally worded version) of the same. Pretty fast - do you do this for a living or something? ;) (...) Pick a name, start a mailing list. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) That was one of the topics we talked and dreamed about at the 'summit' in New York - how "awesome" it would be to have a show where two or three (or more!) different LTCs could display. (Either separately or as one huge combined layout.) Can (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | The formation of an ILTCO
|
|
There has been much discussion by groups wondering whether or not affiliation to this org would be beneficial or not. So I think that it would be helpful to discuss such a group's charter. I see 2 benefits: The first would relate directly to train (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | I*LTC charter
|
|
A lot of the bouncing around has been of what I*LTC would be/do/want/need/whatever. Here's a proposal, in an attempt to move things forward a bit more quickly. Obviously, this should/will need tweaking; it's based on what I've seen bandied about, (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Larry, Thanks for the summary this is basically just as I see it at the moment. <snip summary> (...) Yes. (...) Good point. Trains are definitly the most likely thing to be displayed at the moment so it is probably not going to be a common (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
Here's a summary as I see it so far - The organizational goals aren't 100% clear yet but are getting clearer. - more of a sharing of experiences and ideas and resources (like the handout to pick a small example, but other stuff too) - less of a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: MICHLUG Statements WAS (Re: TeenLTC)
|
|
Ok sorry I did not realize it would get to this point. I was having a bad day and to find the post by John and Larry just made it worse. After some St. Johns Wort pill I realize how much of a !#@ i was. I apologize to everyone on LUGNET for the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| |
| | Re: IBLTC
|
|
(...) I think we can wait and see on that. If every other group has 2 reps then we should probably have 2 but if one is all that is needed then I am happy to be that one. Eric Kingsley (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: IBLTC
|
|
(...) Oh no, I know everything is still in the planning stages and just by talking about it NELUG isn't getting tied to anything further down the road... I just meant that *if* this is the way things are going to go, NELUG should discuss it in depth (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
