| Subject: | Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang" |
|---|---|
| From: | DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx |
| Date: | Sun, 11 Nov 2001 13:12:32 EST |
In a message dated 11/10/01 7:10:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > I assumed he meant the Eveready case with a 1.4N nose. > Sorry for the golden moment of communication. I did mean the Eveready Case with the 1.4N nose. Dave Dougherty |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [OM] AG Schnozz -- I thought you should "nose" about this..., Craig Cunningham |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Tamron 80-200 f/2.8 first observations, GPaul64 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Doggre |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", DAVDOU9211 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |