Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 04/18/2014 04:59 (04/17/2014 19:59) |
| Message-ID | <2014041719593639934-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (8h & 7m) |
On 2014-04-18 02:28:47 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:
SandmanOK! A typo.
In article <2014041607181084984-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:SandmanSavageduckSandmanUh, 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?Eric Stevens
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"???
Bigger.
"...B&H was also very tiny."?? Those are your words aren't they? If you consider B&H "very tiny" what exactly do you consider a large store?Savageduck
"...B&H was also very tiny."???None of that response makes any sense at all.Sandman
Why not?
B&H is a massive store, the furthest from *very tiny* that anybody could possibly imagine. Take a look at their store information video at full screen. < http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/NYSuperStore08.jsp >
-- Regards,
Savageduck
04/14/2014-
