Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Should the nameless stay nameless
From: "geebeespaw" <geebeespaw@btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:50:01 -0000
References: <20020308204134.1128.qmail@web21303.mail.yahoo.com> <009401c1c6e6$a479ada0$22c001d5@desktop>

From: "geebeespaw" <geebeespaw@btopenworld.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: 08 March 2002 21:17
Subject: Re: [Leica] Should the nameless stay nameless


> photophreak posteth thus:
>
>
> >     Judge me by the content of what I post, not by your own
> > imaginations.
> >
> >      Look back over the past few weeks since I have joined.
> >
> >      Have I slandered anyone ?  Or have I held anyone up
> > for ridicule ?
> >
> >     i think there was a parable about someone casting the
> > first stone......
> >
> Blimey! He's back! Pick 12 from the LUG and we'll all get in behind you.
> Ps we have several Marks and a few Johns if you want continuity.



Just a thought. With all the pseudonyms and multiple subscribing on this
list it is entirely possible that there are in fact less than twelve of us
in this forum. However, I have heard it said that the LEG is full of the
self righteous and I suspect they will gladly make up any shortfall once
they come to terms with the LUG being chosen ahead of them.  :-)

Graham
http://geebeephoto.com


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Photo Phreak <leicam4pro@yahoo.com> (RE: [Leica] Should the nameless stay nameless)
Message from "geebeespaw" <geebeespaw@btopenworld.com> (Re: [Leica] Should the nameless stay nameless)