Re: ULF photography

From: Patrick Jan Van Hove ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/20/05-12:34:23 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On 1/20/05 6:56 PM, "Sandy King" <sanking@CLEMSON.EDU> wrote:

> Judy Seigel wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Sandy King wrote:
>>> It seems very clear to me. Patrick asked for contributions about
>>> ULF photography, and I don't think persons who don't even know what
>>> the letters mean stand to make much of a contribution, so why waste
>>> time with an answer that contributes nothing. I don't see that as a
>>> rude comment, just an honest opinion.
>> Answering the question would have taken exactly 3 words. The
>> put-down was much THAt was the waste of time.
>> J.
> So why did you not just answer the question, since as we have now
> learned, you already knew the answer? As you note, three words would
> have avoided any waste of time.
> Sandy
Ok, I said I wouldn't say another word on this thread, but it seems to go on
and on, so I'll just take the blame for all of it, It's my fault, I should
never have brought it up in the first place, please accept my sincerest

Now, back to photography, shall we ?

Received on Thu Jan 20 12:39:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:08 AM Z CST