Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Charles R Joseph <arcaneacuity@****.COM>
Subject: Net Books
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:19:45 -0400
I've been out of the loop for quite some time, and was wondering
if there were currently any shadowrun netbooks in developement. Also,
has there ever been a respectable quality netbook dedicated to Shadowrun
Magic?

Winter Wolfe Arcane
arcaneacuity@****.com

"When our hatred is violent, it sinks us even beneath those we hate."
-Francois de la Rochefoucauld
Message no. 2
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Net Books
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:07:58 EDT
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:19:45 -0400 Charles R Joseph
<arcaneacuity@****.COM> writes:
> I've been out of the loop for quite some time, and was
>wondering if there were currently any shadowrun netbooks in
>developement. Also, has there ever been a respectable quality netbook
>dedicated to Shadowrun Magic?

Well, the NERPS list has got the Neo-Anarchist's Guide to the World in
the works right now, Gurth or one of NERPS people (which does not include
me) can probably fill you in there. There's also some work going on with
a Newbie's Guide to Shadowrun, which Bull can probably best tell you
about:) As for a net.magic sourcebook, I don't know of any .net
sourcebook even really about magic, specifically.


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 'Net Books
Date: Tue May 22 06:50:05 2001
Hi Folks!

I was just wondering what binding methods everyone uses for printing out SR
'net sourcebooks? What do you find convenient, accessable, robust, and so
on?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bob Ooton)
Subject: 'Net Books
Date: Tue May 22 11:10:02 2001
At 05:55 AM 05/22/2001, Damion wrote:
>Hi Folks!
>
>I was just wondering what binding methods everyone uses for printing out SR
>'net sourcebooks? What do you find convenient, accessable, robust, and so
>on?

I had mine printed out at Office Max. They used hard lamination on the
cover and back pages, then had the whole thing comb-bound. They did a bad
job of it, but the binding has held up and it opens fine. If I had to do
it over again, I'd go to a Kinko's or another better shop and have the same
sort of thing done.

__________________________________

Bob Ooton rbooton@*****.edu
aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
__________________________________
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bull)
Subject: Net books
Date: Tue May 22 17:40:01 2001
At 08:55 PM 5/22/01 +1000, you wrote:
Hi Folks!

I was just wondering what binding methods everyone uses for printing out SR
'net sourcebooks? What do you find convenient, accessable, robust, and so
on?

I get plastic ring bindings done at Kinko's for binding up my Playtest
books, usually with either a thicker, almost cardboard like paper for the
cover or a clear plastic sheet, and a vinyl back sheet. Tends to hold up
real well (And I use the ring binding on any sourcebook taht starts falling
apart. At about 4 bucks a book, it's well worth it :)).

As for Net Books... I don't bind 'em cause I don't read 'em, let alone
print 'em out :]

Bull
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jeffery Green)
Subject: 'Net Books
Date: Tue May 22 21:40:01 2001
--- Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> I was just wondering what binding methods everyone
> uses for printing out SR
> 'net sourcebooks? What do you find convenient,
> accessable, robust, and so
> on?

As someone who binds on average 300 books a day I
would recomend either a wire bind or a 19 hole punch
with plasitc combs, use a clear cover or a cardsock
cover with the front page printed on it. For a back a
good vinal or really heavy card sock back works well.
Stay away from anything that glues the pages into the
book, this is a cheeper way to bind them and looks
more "book like" but if you want to reference them
oftin the glue tends to crack and brak away from the
pages. of course this is just imho.
By the wat what is this geek code?


> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++
> N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
> M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++)
> !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
> D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: 'Net Books
Date: Wed May 23 13:15:00 2001
Jeffery Green writes:

> As someone who binds on average 300 books a day I would recomend either a
> wire bind or a 19 hole punch with plasitc combs, use a clear cover or a
> cardsock cover with the front page printed on it. For a back a good vinal
> or really heavy card sock back works well. Stay away from anything that
> glues the pages into the book, this is a cheeper way to bind them and looks
> more "book like" but if you want to reference them oftin the glue tends to
> crack and brak away from the pages. of course this is just imho.

Thanks for the advice! Am I correct in saying that adding and removing
pages from the wire binding is more difficult than the plastic comb?
Otherwise, if the wire binders are what I think they are, they're more
streamlined and easier to use than the plastic combs, and much easier to
shelve. There has to be a disadvantage somewhere ;-). Do the wire binders
hold up to repeated use as well as the plastic combs?

> By the wat what is this geek code?

It's something our original Fearless Leader, Robert A Hayden, once wrote,
and it escaped out onto the 'net. The latest, somewhat outdated version, is
available at www.geekcode.com

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jeffery Green)
Subject: 'Net Books
Date: Wed May 23 13:30:01 2001
My reference at the end:
--- Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> wrote:
> Jeffery Green writes:
>
<<<edited for time and content, also to fit on your
T.V.>>>
> Thanks for the advice! Am I correct in saying that
> adding and removing
> pages from the wire binding is more difficult than
> the plastic comb?
> Otherwise, if the wire binders are what I think they
> are, they're more
> streamlined and easier to use than the plastic
> combs, and much easier to
> shelve. There has to be a disadvantage somewhere
> ;-). Do the wire binders
> hold up to repeated use as well as the plastic
> combs?
>
> > By the wat what is this geek code?
>
> It's something our original Fearless Leader, Robert
> A Hayden, once wrote,
> and it escaped out onto the 'net. The latest,
> somewhat outdated version, is
> available at www.geekcode.com
<<<More Editing>>>

Wire binding is a better choice but to add pages to it
after it is bound is a process of destroying the spine
and replacing it therefore costing you more money.

Thank you for the help on the geekcode.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 'Net Books, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!