>Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable to me... how does that wording >sit with you? This works for me. Lee, if it's redundant... would "Excess Defects" sound better? (That one's fun to say three times real fast! B-) >I severely hope you don't have anything in this condition ;-) I used to, but I traded it for a shrinked Starcross saucer. B-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
- RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Hugh Falk
- Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 C.E. Forman
- How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.... Jim Leonard
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] Moby... Lee K. Seitz
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] ... Jim Leonard
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] ... C.E. Forman
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] Moby... C.E. Forman
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] ... Jim Leonard
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWColl... Lee K. Seitz
- Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SW... Jim Leonard
- RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 C.E. Forman
- RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Hugh Falk
- Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 C.E. Forman
- Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Jim Leonard
- RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Hugh Falk
- Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Lee K. Seitz
- Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6 Jim Leonard