No I have not. I'm reading some say it's OK and others say not so ok. I'm
not baby sitting Wed so I'll see what the local pusher has
On Jun 20, 2017 8:10 PM, "Larry Colen" wrote:
>
>
> David J Brooks wrote:
>
>> Took my Nikon 70-200 vr f2.8 out for a spin today. The AF worked fine
>> for a few m
If you use an eraser be extremely careful not to get any bits of the abrasive
eraser material in the camera. Whatever method you use, you should of course
clean the contacts on both lens and camera.
Paul via phone
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
>
> David J Brooks wrot
David J Brooks wrote:
Took my Nikon 70-200 vr f2.8 out for a spin today. The AF worked fine
for a few minutes then for the rest of the day it would stop orking
for a min then work again for a minute. What is the best method to
clean the contacts. I'll try that first before i drive it to their
s
M, David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> do you get the drops or the spray?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> I use ROR lens cleaning solution on a clean microfiber cloth.
>>>
>>> Paul via phone
>&
The spray. That's all I've seen in stores here, but I'm sure either will work.
Paul via phone
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:55 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>
> do you get the drops or the spray?
>
> Dave
>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Paul Stenquist wro
do you get the drops or the spray?
Dave
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I use ROR lens cleaning solution on a clean microfiber cloth.
>
> Paul via phone
>
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:30 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> Took my Nikon 70-200 vr
I use ROR lens cleaning solution on a clean microfiber cloth.
Paul via phone
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:30 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>
> Took my Nikon 70-200 vr f2.8 out for a spin today. The AF worked fine
> for a few minutes then for the rest of the day it would stop orking
>
Took my Nikon 70-200 vr f2.8 out for a spin today. The AF worked fine
for a few minutes then for the rest of the day it would stop orking
for a min then work again for a minute. What is the best method to
clean the contacts. I'll try that first before i drive it to their
service department to check
I'll dispose of them for you...
>> Norm
>>
>> Pawel Bartuzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean not the usual cleaning but
>>> professional cleaning involving taking the lens apart and cleaning
the lens
> worthless and they should be disposed of properly. If you like, you can
> send them to me and I'll dispose of them for you...
> Norm
>
> Pawel Bartuzi wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean not the usual cleaning bu
Hi Pawel, sounds like a lot of dust. Usually this makes the lens
worthless and they should be disposed of properly. If you like, you can
send them to me and I'll dispose of them for you...
Norm
Pawel Bartuzi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean
No, not at all. Remember, people were hung up on dust before there were
digital cameras. And, having taken apart a few lenses because I saw huge
dust globs, I was surprised to find how tiny the globs were. At least on
the K 135/2.5, what appears big when you lock thru the front element, can
be ve
Eactivist wrote on Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:01:40 -0700:
> (snip)
> Question -- Dust in a lens does NOT show up like dust on a sensor?
> Hmmm. I
> thought that's why people got all hung up on dust in lenses.
Marnie, I believe that dust on the lens elements is usually so
completely out of focus t
In a message dated 4/17/2007 4:13:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Generally the dust only settles in the cavity where t4eh aperture
resides so it's not a particularly complex procedure but it's labor
intensive. So unless the dust cover is particularly dense and the len
Pawel Bartuzi wrote on Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:13:32 -0700:
> Hello,
>
> What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean not the usual
> cleaning but
> professional cleaning involving taking the lens apart and cleaning all
> of it's surfaces?
>
> I ask this question be
On 18/04/07, Pawel Bartuzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder whether thorough cleaning of the lens done by a professional
> does improve such lens performance by a significant margin? Does it
> raise or lower the lens value? What is your opinion, your experience?
Generally the dust only settl
> Hello,
>
> What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean not the usual
> cleaning but
> professional cleaning involving taking the lens apart and cleaning all
> of it's surfaces?
>
> I ask this question because I have several K primes which are now
> about
> 30
Hello,
What is your opinion on lens cleaning? I mean not the usual cleaning but
professional cleaning involving taking the lens apart and cleaning all
of it's surfaces?
I ask this question because I have several K primes which are now about
30 years old and although the pictures made
I don't know much if anything about reassembling lenses, however, a very
well reputed technician in SoCal that I've used always checks the lenses he
repairs on a with a collimator after cleaning and reassembling. Is it
necessary? I don't know, but it sure makes me feel good to know that he's
che
On Mar 25, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Alan Chan wrote:
AKAIK, most manual focus Pentax lenses are rather simple in design and
there are
basically only 2 things to calibrate - the front and rear group
distance & the
focus. Everything else is pretty much fixed and determined by the
precision of
machining i
On Mar 25, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
These days you have potential employers, credit card companies, and
potential mates (in the biological sense, not the Brit/Aussie usage)
googling the people they meet. Some mornings, when I look at my
evening postings, I think "my god, you'll neve
Absolutely! Plus it's nice to be able to say that you've met (fill in
names here) instead of something like "I'm going to meet the Village Idiot
later today." Someone here's using the name Quasi Modo. Does that ring a
bell? ;-))
Tyrone Shoelace
> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert
>
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Lens Cleaning
On 25 Mar 2005 at 15:36, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
PS: Do Village Idiots have names these days, or are they just referred to
as the Village Idiot? I am curious why you ch
suming that I know
anything about photography.
Thanks for everyones input on the lens cleaning (or not cleaning)!
Derek
suming that I know
anything about photography.
Thanks for everyones input on the lens cleaning (or not cleaning)!
Derek
On 25 Mar 2005 at 15:36, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> PS: Do Village Idiots have names these days, or are they just referred to
> as the Village Idiot? I am curious why you choose to call yourself that.
Maybe it's an indication that more forum members who are sick of the BS are
migrating to traditio
On 25/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>PS: Do Village Idiots have names these days, or are they just referred to
>as the Village Idiot? I am curious why you choose to call yourself that.
That's MISTER Idiot to you mate ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
Dear Village Idiot,
You can enlarge whatever image you want to as great a degree as you can,
and you will not see any degradation of the image. Your lack of confidence
is misplaced.
People have been photographing through lenses with dust and flecks between
the elements since well, since the
On 25 Mar 2005 at 13:37, Godfrey Digiorgi wrote:
> A speck of dust won't hurt anything. I am much more bothered by the thought of
> taking a lens apart to clean a speck of dust and then reassembling it without
> having a collimator handy to be certain that all the elements are properly
> centered
--- Godfrey Digiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A speck of dust won't hurt anything. I am much more bothered by the thought of
> taking a lens apart to clean a speck of dust and then reassembling it without
> having a collimator handy to be certain that all the elements are properly
> centered th
Thank you for responding Godfrey. You are right, although the spec is not
dust. I think it is a paint chip. It is black, it is near the edge of the
lens, and it is just big enough to see that the chip is in the shape of a
triangle. I have not seen any degradation in my results using this len
A speck of dust won't hurt anything. I am much more bothered by the thought of
taking a lens apart to clean a speck of dust and then reassembling it without
having a collimator handy to be certain that all the elements are properly
centered than I am by a speck of dust.
Godfrey
On Mar 24, 200
I think that is exactly what it is, a flake of black paint. Thanks you for the
advice.
Village Idiot
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Village Idiot"
> Subject: Lens Cleaning
>
>
> > My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME S
On 24/3/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>It is probably is fleck of black paint that has fallen off the inside of the
>lens barrel.
Have you considered sabotage?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
- Original Message -
From: "Village Idiot"
Subject: Lens Cleaning
My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some
23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that
it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in
Thanks Alan. This is great. It is exactly the information I was looking for!
Thanks for your help.
Village Idiot
> --- Village Idiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly?
>
> Usually dust gets inside between the front and the
Yes, I suspected as much.
Thanks,
Village Idiot
> On 24 Mar 2005 at 17:06, Village Idiot wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the
> > lense,
> > and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look
> > really close when the
On 24 Mar 2005 at 17:06, Village Idiot wrote:
> I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the lense,
> and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look
> really close when the lens is dismounted.
>
> OTOH, just knowing it is there kind of bothe
--- Village Idiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly?
Usually dust gets inside between the front and the rear element group, the space
where the aperture blades is. You can get there from the front or from the rear.
>From the front,
LOL
Now that's comedy! I can relate all too well.
Village Idiot
> Village Idiot wrote:
>
> > Thanks Mike. I haven't started yet, so I appreciate the tip!
> >
> > Village Idiot
> Sorry I can't help more but I'm sneaking away from packing to do this
> and sooner or later you are going to he
Village Idiot wrote:
Thanks Mike. I haven't started yet, so I appreciate the tip!
Village Idiot
Sorry I can't help more but I'm sneaking away from packing to do this
and sooner or later you are going to hear an almighty thud as I get
discovered...
m
Thanks Mike. I haven't started yet, so I appreciate the tip!
Village Idiot
> Village Idiot wrote:
> > Thanks for your response.
> >
> > I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because
> > it
> is the cheapest lens to replace.
> >
> > As far as instructions, is
Village Idiot wrote:
Thanks for your response.
I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it is the cheapest lens to replace.
As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that are on the mount end of the lens?
You're starting at the w
Thanks for your response.
I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it
is the cheapest lens to replace.
As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that
are on the mount end of the lens?
Village Idiot
> The speck won't have a
I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the lense,
and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look
really close when the lens is dismounted.
OTOH, just knowing it is there kind of bothers me.
Village Idiot
> Village Idiot wrote:
>
> >
Village Idiot wrote:
My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super
some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to
see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any
of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In
The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not
worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since
it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good
choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is
p
My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23
years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is
triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so
I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I hav
On 7/7/04, Sylwester Pietrzyk, discombobulated, offered:
>> When lenses are in the bag, they are capped. When they come out of the
>> bag, the caps come off and stay in the bag, always. Even on that Smegma
>> 14mm 2,8 which many have seen at GFM - the front element is bulbous -
>> must be very sim
On 7/7/04, William Robb, discombobulated, offered:
>Does the switch to Canon lenses have anything to do with this? I have
>been told, but cannot comment first hand, that they are more prone to
>flare all on their own.
>I can see how any filter would only exacerbate the problem.
Actually no! The d
On 2004-07-07, at 20:55, Cotty wrote:
When lenses are in the bag, they are capped. When they come out of the
bag, the caps come off and stay in the bag, always. Even on that Smegma
14mm 2,8 which many have seen at GFM - the front element is bulbous -
must be very similar to the new Pentax 14mm.
No,
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: lens cleaning
> My take on filters is that I am swaying to not using them.
> However, I have always been aware that there is inevitably an
increase in
> flare using filters on lenses with inadequate lens shading (fo
My take on filters is that I am swaying to not using them.
I used to use filters always, on every lens, if only as a protection.
Even the works Betacam had a UV on the front - and boy that came in
useful. One day I was using an unfamiliar car with a lift-up tailgate and
the camera caught the corne
>> I would end with some funny punchline from Monty Python to make this
>> less serious (is that even possible ?), but my memory is failing
>> me... Please, others, put some nice MP reference here :)
BW> The song (click "Download Here"):
BW> http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/index.shtml
BW> T
Hi,
> OMG, not THAT debate again :-)
[...]
> Again, De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum (meaning loosely, your mileage
> may vary).
> Both approaches, To Filter or Not To Filter, are fundamentally
> different for different kind of photography.
> I would end with some funny punchline from Monty Pyt
Tom,
I am sure people have answered the lens cleaning issue by now, so I will
leave that one alone... see below.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:08 PM
I've been using a very soft brush for the dust etc and then us
Just look on the brighter side of life
I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK...
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM...
Tom C.
From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lens cleaning
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2
OMG, not THAT debate again :-)
Let's just say that fast shooters, PJs, similar almost always use
filters (no time to remove lens caps, "cleaning" the lens with your
dirty handkerchief because no time for something better, care more
about the moment that slight unsharpness, modern xMC filters - Nik
>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:59 AM
Subject: RE: lens cleaning
> I don't usually use those filters anymore. Someone a while back asked why
> would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then take pictures through a
> $10 piece of glass? Another piece of glass means more optical
imperfections.
On 6 Jul 2004 at 19:36, Bob W wrote:
> Another aspect to consider is this: however many cigarettes people stub
> out on a coated lens, and however many rubber erasers they clean it up
> with, you can still f_ck up the front element big time in an infinity
> of unimaginable ways. A filter offers a
Bob W wrote:
BW>There are plenty of filters around that cost a whole lot more than $10-
and
will not *significantly* degrade the quality of your photographs. By
'significantly' I mean 'to the extent that normal people can see under
normal conditions'. Mr. Asahi made some of them."
Maybe so. They
I remember reading about a newspaper that removed and threw away the lens
caps before issuing new cameras to its team. However, that was before
SLRs, and it was all too easy to take a wonderful shot with the lens cap
firmly in situ.
John
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:36:23 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROT
Simon King wrote:
"I thought everyone had a UV or Skylight on when venturing outside, and only
took them off to put on another filter."
I don't usually use those filters anymore. Someone a while back asked why
would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then take pictures through a
$10 piece of
I don't know what the exact ingredients are but Kodak Len Fluid smells like
ammonia while some unknown lens fluid (those I used many many yrs ago)
smells like alcohol.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I think that any lens cleaning fluid which contains surface
detensioning a
I think that any lens cleaning fluid which contains surface
detensioning agents (surfactants) is to be avoided. In plain speech,
that's your typical dishwasher agent, and such concotions using it in
cleaner form sold for higher prices.
Why?
Because surfactants are notorious for sticking o
ECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 3:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: lens cleaning
I've been using a very soft brush for the dust etc and then using a
microfiber cloth to clean the raindrop marks etc. Does anyone have any
other
methods that they use? Is the microfiber cloth slowly wiping a
cloths (I have two). That way you can
claim Pentax has to replace the lens coatings for free.
--
Cotty wrote:
In answer to your question re lens cleaning. I use a clean handkerchief
and all the hot breath I can muster. Right on the front element. Gives me
a [physical attribution deleted
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:38, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat.
I'm sure that coatings aren't a precious as many people make out, I'm not at
all scared to rip into my late Leica lenses with anything that's on hand
especially after reading the following
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley"
Subject: Re: lens cleaning
> Photo Life was from what country? I"ve been buying photo mags for
quite
> a few years, and I'm not sure it rings a bell...
> Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat
Photo Life was from what country? I"ve been buying photo mags for quite
a few years, and I'm not sure it rings a bell...
Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat.
Thanks again, keith
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Keith Whaley wrote:
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~d
- Original Message -
From: "Ann Sanfedele"
Subject: Re: lens cleaning
> Your three reptiles???
>
>
Three entire species...
WW
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Keith Whaley wrote:
> > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/LXad4.jpg
>
> Now, THAT's impressive!
> I've bookmarked it for my Pentax files. Thsnks!
Hi Keith,
I should have taken the time to properly attribute it. It was sent to me some
time back by a lister Greg
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Jul 2004 at 15:08, William Robb wrote:
No.
True story from when I worked for a camera retailer.
The reps were putting on a dog and pony show for us. The Pentax rep
had a 50mm lens sitting on the table that he was inviting smokers to
but their cigarettes onto.
It was an ex
On 5 Jul 2004 at 15:08, William Robb wrote:
> No.
> True story from when I worked for a camera retailer.
> The reps were putting on a dog and pony show for us. The Pentax rep
> had a 50mm lens sitting on the table that he was inviting smokers to
> but their cigarettes onto.
> It was an excellent d
William Robb wrote:
>
>
> Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX
> > market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of
> reptiles)?
>
> He'll have to pry my three out of my cold dead fingers to do it.
>
>
> William Robb
Your three reptiles???
annsan
ROR is quite good. Much prefer ClearSight, however. A little easier to
use, also one can get some very high quality lens cleaning accessories,
such as a SUPER cloth.
http://www.clearsightusa.com/
ROR and ClearSight are both fine, and both will do a good job. The Filter
Connection also sells a
Lens cleaning tissues are to be avoided. Use some kind of lens cleaning
fluid with the microfiber cloth. The best is ROR, Residual Oil Remover.
William Robb turned me on to that. It's great.
Paul
On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Tom Reese wrote:
I've been using a very soft brush for the du
known.
>Should I be using that lens cleaner liquid stuff?
Maybe.
>Should I be using a lens
>cleaner pen (rubbing an eraser across the front of my lens seems like a bad
>idea)?
Sounds dodgy to me.
>Are those lens cleaning tissues to be avoided?
I slipped on one once, won&#x
lens
cleaner pen (rubbing an eraser across the front of my lens seems like a bad
idea)? Are those lens cleaning tissues to be avoided? Is Frank Theriault
really an RCMP undercover agent? Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX
market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of reptiles)? Will
Hi Alan ...
There's no place in San Francisco that I'd recommend. There
might be a good place but I've yet to find it. All my gear
goes out of town.
shel
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I am asking this one for a friend in San Francisco [...]
> Does anyone have tried any reputable service centres in tha
I am asking this one for a friend in San Francisco. He had a EXAKTA
SCHNEIDER 150/4 being cleaned in HK but was messed up. The glasses were not
properly cleaned and there is some mechanicam problem with the aperture.
Does anyone have tried any reputable service centres in that area so my
friend
På 20. feb. 2004 kl. 19.02 skrev Andre Langevin:
The glass of a lens should be about the same Moh's hardness as
quartz, 7,
since it's predominately quartz. I have no idea about the hardness of
coatings, but aren't they only a few molecules thick?
Bill
Pentax says its SMC coating is harder than g
The glass of a lens should be about the same Moh's hardness as quartz, 7,
since it's predominately quartz. I have no idea about the hardness of
coatings, but aren't they only a few molecules thick?
Bill
Pentax says its SMC coating is harder than glass. Very hard molecules...
Andre
t;
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: Lens Cleaning Problem - Volatile Liquids
> What is much harder than talc? Lens coatings, or graphite? Obviously,
lens
> coatings are much harder than either. I stated I had no idea how to
> quantif
would expect even a vigorous
cleaning with graphite would do nothing more than yield a very clean lens.
Aric
-Original Message-
From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lens Cleaning Problem - Volatile Liquids
It is much harder than talc. Think about it.
From: "Rothman, Aric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Interestingly, carbon (graphite) is both the softest (tying with talc),
and hardest (diamond) mineral, per Moh's
> hardness scale. Depends on its molecular structure.
>
> I have no idea how the typical lens
This is absolutely not true concerning lamp or bone black. Carbon comes in
many forms, polymorphs, e.g. crystalin as in diamond which is very hard
indead, in sheet form as in graphite and only weakly bonded where it is very
soft and will not wear bearings when used as a lubricant. Graphite hardness
I have no idea how the typical lens coating material compares in
hardness, quantitatively speaking.
We only know SMC is harder than the glass under it (dixit Pentax).
Andre
Hi,
haven't you heard of Playboy?
--
Cheers,
Bob
> Yes, well,
> Marnie's and Cotty's gender identification issues have nothing to do with my
> species identification issues. I don't see what the connection is.
>>
>> > does this mean frank's not a bunny?
>>
s true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Problem)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:52:50 +0100
> does this mean frank's not a bunny?
The stuff is as soft as talc. No harm will come to your lenses or coatings
from the lamp black. FYI, this is the substance preferred by photographers
of yore.
Be very careful not to spill it. If you do, and it's on the carpet, and you
are married, you will probably soon be single.
Regards,
Bob...
Lens Cleaning Problem)
It can be confusing, I spent the first 12 months on this list thinking Cotty
was a woman.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2004 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Pr
1:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Problem)
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >In a message dated 2/16/2004 8:51:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Regards,
> >Bob...
> -
Lasse,
You're in trouble now, I remember a year or so ago I made the mistake
of accidentally referring to Marnie with the masculine pronoun...
At 10:57 PM 2/17/04, you wrote:
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >In a message dated 2/16/2004 8:51:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's an interesting idea. I am always reluctant to use a powder
because most have some abrasive effect. Is this not a problem?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/18/04 10:27AM >>>
The problem I've had with volatile liquids (alcohol, acetone, etc...)
is
that while they'd dissolve many oils & greases, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 2/17/2004 7:53:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Lasse
>
> >P.s. Is "Marnie" always female?
>
> Yup.
>
> I was gring at Bob's signature line, though.
>
> But what the ___, I'll take apologies from any quarter.
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 05:33, Simon King wrote:
> It can be confusing, I spent the first 12 months on this list thinking Cotty
> was a woman.
> Simon
I know the feeling, I applied for a job to mr. so and so last week by
email, and she replied my email.
--
Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
does this mean frank's not a bunny?
-Original Message-
From: Simon King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Problem)
It can be confusing, I spent the first 12 months on this list thi
- Original Message -
From: "Simon King"
Subject: RE: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Problem)
> It can be confusing, I spent the first 12 months on this list
thinking Cotty
> was a woman.
WHAT??
I thought the name was short for "Cottrella"
Am I naive or what??
William Robb
It can be confusing, I spent the first 12 months on this list thinking Cotty
was a woman.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2004 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Apologies (Was: Lens Cleaning Problem)
From
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
