To recount facts is not to impugn a reputation, and furthermore, the
evidence *was* given. What conclusion you draw from it is up to you.
I think it is fair to say that the original poster was suspicious of the
course of dealings, and that anyone who had experienced such a course of
dealings would ALSO be suspicious.
Cheers,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tom
Sent: April 2, 2001 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: No Sale, Bill...
I think if you're going to impugn someone's reputation *publicly* you
should produce some evidence when you do so.
tv
Bucky wrote:
>
> I agree. I think the original post was a fair heads-up to the rest of us.
> Any reasonably wary person would be a little suspicious of such behavior.
> Well done to warn us.
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
