Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?

• Next message: Troy V. Barkmeier: "[NTLK] Attn: Keepers of the FAQ"
• Previous message: Brian: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Maybe in reply to: Varun Mehta: "[NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Next in thread: John Hawksworth-Lutzow: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Reply: John Hawksworth-Lutzow: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Reply: smullers_at_xs4all.nl: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>From: Robert Benschop <rbenschop_at_euronet.nl>
>Good to know, but nobody states the state of the screen, which I think is
>the most important.
>I'd rather have a worn down Newt with a cover or two missing with a pristine
>screen than the opposite...

My thought was that if the cover was missing, the screen would be unlikely
to be nice... (no protection for it).

Have the coverless ones actually usually had Ok screens?

Brian

-- 
Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html
Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/

• Next message: Troy V. Barkmeier: "[NTLK] Attn: Keepers of the FAQ"
• Previous message: Brian: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Maybe in reply to: Varun Mehta: "[NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Next in thread: John Hawksworth-Lutzow: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Reply: John Hawksworth-Lutzow: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Reply: smullers_at_xs4all.nl: "Re: [NTLK] Cheap 2100's, too good to be true?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 12:04:37 EST