Re: to be or not to be... - XCC ForumRegister | Login | Search
History | Home | Messages
to be or not to be...flyby07:05 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek17:35 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will17:52 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:23 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will18:29 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:07 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will19:10 19-11-2001

seems that TS normals will be much easier to understand
and get right

do we need to study RA2 normals now? shouldn't we get TS
normals right, as we can use them?

better having something basic that *works* than something
complicated that *doesn't*

Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:30 19-11-200116
    Re: to be or not to be...will19:32 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:27 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero20:44 19-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:59 19-11-2001
                Re: to be or not to be...will21:26 19-11-2001
                    Re: to be or not to be...flyby21:44 19-11-2001
                        Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek22:43 19-11-2001
                            Re: to be or not to be...flyby22:51 19-11-2001
                                Re: to be or not to be...will23:46 19-11-2001
                                    Re: to be or not to be...flyby00:09 20-11-2001
                                    Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero07:07 20-11-2001
                                        Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:37 21-11-2001
                                        Re: to be or not to be...Koen van de Sande04:11 22-11-2001
                                    Re: to be or not to be...haydn00:33 24-11-2001
                                Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek19:00 20-11-2001

Home | Post | Users | Messages