Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*another\s+disput\s+looming\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*another\s+disput\s+looming\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:15:08 +1000; My dear friends around the world. It was nice to see the pictures of the destroyed K1 and I thank you for the listing. I am glad the PRESENT owner does not make it out to be a K3. So many do. And wha; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00006.html (9,474 bytes)
2. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: Kellmg@aol.com; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 18:58:49 EST; Being the guilty party who listed this originally. Pun intended. I would have been more correct in the subject title to list it "Replica K3" as opposed to "K3 Replica." As for Pips remarks the "Our; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00008.html (10,886 bytes)
3. RE: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pete and Fran Thelander" <pthelander@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:2:17 -0800; Interesting that the Coys K type is listed with the chassis number K0147.. The first K-type was Chassis No. K0251. Where did they get a number before the beginning??? Maybe we need to see what infor; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00009.html (11,052 bytes)
4. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: Kellmg@aol.com; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:08:46 EST; OK. The prize goes to Pete. Congratulations. You are now the Proud owner of an NE. Brian Kelly. /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try /// http://www.team.net/cgi-; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00010.html (8,444 bytes)
5. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:06:27 +1000; Pete, That's what it seems to be - purporting to be what it ain't. I agree with your earlier comments that MG did more or less the same thing. That is converted or made something up. But that is the; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00011.html (13,046 bytes)
6. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:25:55 +1000; Thanks for your comments, too. I am not wanting to re organise the MMM Register, but they have been guilty of getting a couple of things wrong before. As an example :- When I first joined in early 1; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00012.html (12,803 bytes)
7. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:28:55 +1000; Pete, Great stuff. There are, of course, various versions of English language & they vary a bit. Can you honestly tell me that "the owner" did not intend this to be his K3 when he says the following; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00013.html (18,282 bytes)
8. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: Kellmg@aol.com; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:53:59 EST; Main Entry: repB7liB7ca Pronunciation: 're-pli-k& Function: noun Etymology: Italian, repetition, from replicare to repeat, from Late Latin, from Latin, to fold back b more at <A HREF="aol://4344:170; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00014.html (9,230 bytes)
9. RE: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Lew Palmer" <lpalmer@mn.mediaone.net>; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:41:41 -0600; Gentlemen (and ladies if some are present), Having just done a quick check of the data supplied in the advert, I find that the Chassis number K0147 is nothing more than a dyslexic typist. This car is; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00015.html (14,324 bytes)
10. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Ray" <spook01@home.com>; Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:40:28 -0600; It is a "fake" only if the guys trys to pawn it off as an original car. If he says it is a replica, that is what it is.......... Ray the is tamper agree should intended you cars majordomo@autox.team.; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00016.html (20,834 bytes)
11. Re: another disput looming (score: 1): Author: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:24:58 +1000; Of course you are quite correct about the fake bit if you take that part of the explanation of the word fake in isolation. However, unless you actually wrote the Oxford Dictionary, I would take you; /html/mg-mmm/2002-01/msg00018.html (10,292 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]