Subject:
|
Re: How complete R U?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.uk
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 06:41:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
819 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Huw Millington writes:
> Mark "not as complete as he thought" de Kock wrote:
>
> > Well, as I do not keep the package, 1462 = 1692 to me!
>
> That is not the case at all. The instructions do not have a dual-number on
> them therefore it must be considered a separate set.
>
> :-)
>
> Huw
(I could really defend myself by saying that I don't keep the instructions...)
Okay, you win. IF I ever go through my hundreds of Instructions, I might find
out what number is printed on this one.
There are instructions, whith dual numbers though.
Mark "1462 or 1692?" de Kock
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How complete R U?
|
| (...) That is not the case at all. The instructions do not have a dual-number on them therefore it must be considered a separate set. :-) Huw (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
