Re: flektogon not bad at all

by Peter Chant <REMpeteOVE@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Apr 17, 2008 at 07:16 PM

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


> Have i? Have we 'had words' before? I can't remember.
> 

For goodness sake don't turn this newsgroup into a
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
clone.

Chill...

-- 
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

13 Posts in Topic:

flektogon not bad at all

Zot <wiz_au@[EMAIL PRO

2008-04-16 22:48:32

Re: flektogon not bad at all

fotoralf@[EMAIL PROTECTED

2008-04-16 15:37:07

Re: flektogon not bad at all

Zot <wiz_au@[EMAIL PRO

2008-04-17 00:05:25

Re: flektogon not bad at all

fotoralf@[EMAIL PROTECTED

2008-04-16 16:33:49

Re: flektogon not bad at all

Zot <wiz_au@[EMAIL PRO

2008-04-17 00:46:44

Re: flektogon not bad at all

"Q.G. de Bakker"

2008-04-16 17:02:01

Re: flektogon not bad at all

Zot <wiz_au@[EMAIL PRO

2008-04-17 21:08:49

Re: flektogon not bad at all

fotoralf@[EMAIL PROTECTED

2008-04-17 15:08:02

Re: flektogon not bad at all

"Q.G. de Bakker"

2008-04-17 17:27:57

Re: flektogon not bad at all

Peter Chant <REMpeteOV

2008-04-17 19:16:30

Re: flektogon not bad at all

fotoralf@[EMAIL PROTECTED

2008-04-17 20:47:42

Re: flektogon not bad at all

"Q.G. de Bakker"

2008-04-17 22:36:27

Re: flektogon not bad at all

Noons <shwabo.au@[EMAI

2008-04-17 16:37:47

Post A Reply:

About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup
tan12V112 Thu Jul 24 4:08:53 CDT 2008.