Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35-70/2.8 saga
From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:39:21 -0500
References: <C1E4B5EAA5A86B4E87F5963F6C023FCC095C23@ap1001.firm.kutakrock.com> <3.0.6.32.20010306135744.0099fe40@POP6.sympatico.ca>

The ebay seller was a red herring.    The lens was not sold on eBay.  The
dealer claims to have sold the lens within minutes of posting the note to
the LUG, according to John who called the dealer.  And the lens was not
sold to a Montrealer.  

Why doesn't the person who bought the lens step forward and end the
speculation?

dan c.

At 07:48 AM 07-03-01 +0800, ray tai wrote:
>The ebay seller was from Montreal.  Too much of a coincidence?
>
>Dan Cardish wrote:
>
>> Why do you say this?  Why don't you first ask the person who actually
>> bought the lens (assuming you can find him) to get his side of the story?
>>
>> This is what I meant by the ambiguity of "facts".
>>
>> dan c.
>>
>> .At 09:57 AM 06-03-01 -0800, Mehrdad Sadat wrote:
>> >One thing, I can tell you, I will not buy anything from them!!
>> >
>> >
>
>

In reply to: Message from Dan Cardish <dcardish@sympatico.ca> (RE: [Leica] 35-70/2.8 saga)