Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/18/2014 04:28 (04/18/2014 04:28) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll13jh.c2d.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Savageduck |
| Followups | Savageduck (30m) > Sandman |
In article <2014041607181084984-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:
Bigger.SavageduckSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
Uh, yeah? I was there, remember? It was a tiny store. Why is this a problem for you? Do you have some form of pride invested into the size of this store? Why? What's it to you?
Size is a relative thing, especially if you judge by the size of B&H or similar.
Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny.
"bugger"???
"...B&H was also very tiny."???
None of that response makes any sense at all.Why not?
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
