Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: anal retention  (Read 2660 times)

j

  • Member
  • Never Nude
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
anal retention
« on: 17 October, 2001, 02:56:48 AM »
Can anybody tell me the exact dimensions of 2000ad down through the progs and the prog numbers that it changed size at. Looking at the meg reprints I'm a bit confused.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7047
  • CONSUME!
    • View Profile
Re: anal retention
« Reply #1 on: 24 July, 2020, 02:11:46 AM »
Sort of. But I've never measured them.

Dimensions A: progs 1-109; 128-499; 501-519
Dimensions B: progs 110-127
Dimensions C: 500
Dimensions D: 520-1199 (there may be further differences within that bracket)
Dimensions E: 1200-1370
Dimensions F: P2004 (or 1370.5) - present day.

Something like that.

Oh wait, look what I just found:

I kept info on the various formats when I was figuring out storage options a while back:

1 to 109240 x 280mm / 9.5 x 11in
110 to 127215 x 280mm / 8.5 x 11in
128 to 519240 x 280mm / 9.5 x 11in
520 to 1032230 x 300mm / 9 x 11.75in
1033 to 1199210 x 300mm / 8.25 x 11.75in
1200 to 1370195 x 300mm / 7.75 x 11.75in
1371 to present210 x 280mm / 8.25 x 11in

The sizes of the newsprint progs (pre 520) probably vary a little bit, as the folding and cutting of each prog was sometimes a bit erratic...
++ logos ++ stages ++ coma ++

Dandontdare

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10425
    • View Profile
Re: anal retention
« Reply #2 on: 24 July, 2020, 11:37:03 AM »
This was a necropost from 2001 that was bumped because it was spammed - it's gone now but it was just a link, no text - I almost clicked thinking it was a newly asked question and answer.

Colin YNWA

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 15486
    • View Profile
Re: anal retention
« Reply #3 on: 24 July, 2020, 11:43:25 AM »
This was a necropost from 2001 that was bumped because it was spammed - it's gone now but it was just a link, no text - I almost clicked thinking it was a newly asked question and answer.

The title was just begging for some of our recent spam!

broodblik

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1710
    • View Profile
Re: anal retention
« Reply #4 on: 24 July, 2020, 12:42:58 PM »
This was a necropost from 2001 that was bumped because it was spammed - it's gone now but it was just a link, no text - I almost clicked thinking it was a newly asked question and answer.

The title was just begging for some of our recent spam!

I almost did not read this thread as well. Lets not go too those dark places :(

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7047
  • CONSUME!
    • View Profile
Re: anal retention
« Reply #5 on: 24 July, 2020, 06:13:38 PM »
This was a necropost from 2001 that was bumped because it was spammed - it's gone now but it was just a link, no text - I almost clicked thinking it was a newly asked question and answer.

Trust me not to read the date! Still, I'm sure that 'j' from 2001 will be pleased to have received a comprehensive answer after his long, eminently patient, nineteen year wait (assuming he wasn't paying attention to the thread I quoted from 2017).

Could I have used my time more productively? Sure. But that's always been true.
++ logos ++ stages ++ coma ++