[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 11:53 AM 02-02-01, Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> (3) Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other features >> come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of >> inkjets. > > > ?????? > Am I reading this wrong, it doesn't make sense to me. I think this is called a "senior's moment" regardless of the age of the person involved. I do this all the time. It is the fingers auto-typing another word than the one in one's mind. A little bit of logic and creativity would probably allow you to make the assumption that the second reference was supposed to be dye sub, rather than inkjet. Art
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Wilkinson
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Wilkinson
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian Jackson
- filmscanners: Re: selling digital images patton paul
- Re: filmscanners: Re: selling digital images Larry Berman
- Re: filmscanners: Re: selling digital images Barbara Abel
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- RE: filmscanners: real value? cjcronin
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Rob Geraghty
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? John Matturri
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Mike Kersenbrock
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian Jackson
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Robert E. Wright
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Gordon Tassi
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Hersch Nitikman
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Arthur Entlich