ML Archiv: Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5

Subject:	Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5
From:	siddiq <iddibhai@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:14:15 -0800

11/17/2002 10:38:21 PM, Chris Barker <imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I have changed the subject line ... what's an Infiniti anyway ...
>

nissan with leather and chrome <g>

/S
--
"We apologise for the inconvenience." 




< 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>
Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, (continued) Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, John Hudson Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Winsor Crosby Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Tim Chakravorty Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Tom Scales [OM] Re: [ot] cars. was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, siddiq Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Winsor Crosby [ot] coupes, was Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, siddiq RE: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, James N. McBride Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Tom Scales [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Chris Barker Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, siddiq <= Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Tom Scales Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Julian Davies RE: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5 - now also 90 f2, IanG Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Winsor Crosby Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Chris Barker Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Winsor Crosby Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, siddiq Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, siddiq Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Jamie Costello Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Winsor Crosby

Previous by Date:	Re: [OM] Film scanners and printers, Chris Barker
Next by Date:	[OM] Tamron 500/8 in UK, tOM Trottier
Previous by Thread:	[OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Chris Barker
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] OT cars, was 50mm f2 vs 3.5, Tom Scales
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]