ML Archiv: Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang"

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>
[OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", DAVDOU9211 RE: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Chip Stratton Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Tom Scales Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", bhinderks [OM] Need some advice also 24 shift almost FS, M. Royer [OM] What's the next lens for you?, Tom Scales Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Terry and Tracey Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Craig Henrikson Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", Doggre Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", DAVDOU9211 <= Re: [OM] Re: Does this Qualify as a "Fang", DAVDOU9211

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]