Subject: | RE: [OM] second body |
---|---|
From: | "Ian A. Nichols" <I.A.Nichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:30:38 +0000 (GMT) |
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Timpe, Jim wrote: > Ken N. mentioned... > > >>>>>>>>I still think P.A. would be a good second body to have > >>>>>>>>around. : ) Don't know about battery life, though. > > to which I say perhaps we need to ask Tommy Lee. She does seem to have survived quite a bit of battery. -- ________________________________________________________________________ * | | | / | |/-\ | Ian A. Nichols | | | | | | | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/~cpian/ | | \-/| | / | i.a.nichols@xxxxxxxxxx | | * iann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Film to flange distance in various OM bodies, Dirk Wright |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] To trade, or not to trade... That is the question!, Chris O'Neill |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [OM] second body, Timpe, Jim |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] second body, Doggre |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |