FS: M.E. Snowline

grahamblamey said:

Price £120.00 ono.

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. £120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: justgiving.comlondon2004Open ↗

Try advertising it on the forums at www.ukclimbing.com

I've got two ME bags and happy with them. I've got a ME Dreamcatcher 500 (-5c) which did the trick
for a couple of nights recently but I think is too warm for the summer so I got a Skyline bag (+5c)
as well. That weighs a mere 560 grams and packs down to a tiny size so is great for backpacking.

Cheers, Jiffy

Paul Rooney said:

grahamblamey said:

Price £120.00 ono.

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. £120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

...but if you're looking for one and the new price of £280 seems a bit steep....

Regards,

Pete.

Paul Rooney said:

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. =A3120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

Not a Snowline with very little use. Down doesn't really degrade if=20 it's looked after, and
it sounds as if this one has been. I sold my=20 Iceline last year for =A3150: the new owner was
my friend before, and=20 still is now! She's very happy to have finally found a bag she'll
be=20 warm in.

=A3120 sounds fair to me for what you're getting, they're very good bags =

if you want to be toasty in winter.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Connolly said:

Paul Rooney said:

grahamblamey said:

Price £120.00 ono.

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. £120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

...but if you're looking for one and the new price of £280 seems a bit steep....

For £280 I'd expect it to include a naked masseuse.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: justgiving.comlondon2004Open ↗

Quoted message said:

£120 sounds fair to me for what you're getting, they're >very good bags if you want to be toasty in
winter. Pete.

And you will be! I last used this bag in April 2003 in the Lake District and the o/night temp was
-5 C. I was way too warm but it was too cold to open the bag or stick parts out - it was then that
I realised that for me, a lighter bag (ME Lightline or sim.) for winter would be better. It's taken
me 'till now to decide to sell it and if I don't get somewhere near that price, I'll keep it. No
big deal. G

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003

Paul Rooney said:

Peter Connolly said:

Paul Rooney said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:39:33 -0000, "grahamblamey" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Price £120.00 ono.

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. £120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

...but if you're looking for one and the new price of £280 seems a bit steep....

For £280 I'd expect it to include a naked masseuse.

Lol, In your dreams ;-0

CB
--
Bird sightings based around 'Craven' Skipton, North Yorks. cravenbirds.mysite.freeserve.comcravenbirds.mysite.freeserve.comOpen ↗
mysite.freeserve.comcravenbirdsOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Price £120.00 ono.

I think you're pushing it a bit there, Graham. £120 for a used sleeping bag seems a bit
excessive to me.

...but if you're looking for one and the new price of £280 seems a bit steep....

For £280 I'd expect it to include a naked masseuse.

I'm open to offers 🙂 G

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003

grahamblamey said:

And you will be! I last used this bag in April 2003 in the Lake District and the o/night temp was
-5 C. I was way too warm but it was too cold to open the bag or stick parts out - it was then that
I realised that for me, a lighter bag (ME Lightline or sim.) for winter would be better.

Sounds very similar to my experience with the Iceline. I now have a Lightline and used it in a snow
cave last year where it was cold enough to freeze a bottle of juice solid overnight, so as long as
you're not a cold sleeper it'll do most things. My gf recently bought a Rab Quantum 600, which looks
to be a *very* nice piece of kit.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

<snip> My gf recently bought a Rab Quantum

Quoted message said:

600, which looks to be a *very* nice piece of kit. Pete.

Huh...I was just looking at Rab bags, the Quantum 600 is -12C for 950 g which sounds pretty good,
but I'm also interested in the Q 400 which is -5C for 750 g, ideal for backpacking IMO. Has she got
any opinions as to whether the ratings are anywhere near accurate? I'd be interested, Ta, G

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003

Peter Clinch said:

Sounds very similar to my experience with the Iceline.

What's the difference between the Snowline and the Iceline? And which model did you recommend to me
some time back? I seem to be quite a cold sleeper these days.

How heavy is it Graham? I may be interested.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukcal.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

grahamblamey said:

Has she got any opinions as to whether the ratings are anywhere near accurate? I'd be
interested, Ta,

Doubt it yet, it's only had one trip! Ratings are a very personal thing, but OTOH the Lightline is,
at least for me, a fair rating and the Q600 has slightly more slightly better down though a slightly
less technical shell, so should do similar things which is fair enough as both are rated to -12C.

I've never heard anyone complain about Rab bags being over optimisitic, if anything they seem to be
conservatively rated. Since you're selling on the Snowline as too hot I'd guess you're in the same
overall ballpark as me so can probably trust the numbers.

One of the nice things about the Rab is you can specify a slightly heavier but more water repellent
shell if you prefer it. The heavier one is similar to the fabric used on the ME bags. Roos has the
heavier outer, and it's still a very light bag for what it should do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Sounds very similar to my experience with the Iceline.

What's the difference between the Snowline and the Iceline?

The Snowline is rated down to -20 C and the Iceline down to -25 C

Quoted message said:

And which model did you recommend to me some time back?

Not me, did you mean Pete?

Quoted message said:

I seem to be quite a cold sleeper these days.

Nothing worse than not being snug (well there probably is but we'll overlook that)

Quoted message said:

How heavy is it Graham? I may be interested. Paul

The Snowline is listed @ 1540g, the Iceline @ 1750g when you take the Snowline out of it's sack the
loft is superb, really comforting 🙂 Could you go into your friendly local outdoor store and take a
look at one? Or click on this: tinyurl.comywb8sOpen ↗

Graham

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003

grahamblamey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Did you get my emal Graham? I've got so much automatc spam deletion that I'm not sure if it got
through. Paul

Yes I did Paul, but I was out all day, reply on its way Graham

This reminds me of when my two elderly mates first got email facilities, and would phone me every
time they sent an email to see if I'd got it.
:-)
--
Gordon

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

This reminds me of when my two elderly mates first got email facilities, and would phone me every
time they sent an email to see if I'd got it. :-)

:-)

I have a good reason for asking though. I bounce so much spam that I get hundreds of undeliverable
messages sent back to me, and there's no way I'm going to check through each one to see if one of
them was a genuine email that I sent.

My first email was bounced back because of a spamtrap in the email address, so I had to alter it
and wasn't 100% if I'd got the address right.

Yes, I understand what you were getting at, I'm looking forward to demon starting their spam
filtering, albeit belatedly, I know people using AOL who get no spam, yet lots of mine come from AOL
and Hotmail etc!
--
Gordon

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

I have a good reason for asking though. I bounce so much spam that I get hundreds of
undeliverable messages sent back to me, and there's no way I'm going to check through each one to
see if one of them was a genuine email that I sent.

Paul, there's a very compelling reason for *not* bouncing spam, and that's the fact of all
those undeliverables. They're the cause of just as much spam as the original stuff, which is
why I no longer bother to bounce stuff. I'm not convinced it actually does any good either -
it's not as though anyone sending out the pink stuff is ever likely to remove an email address
from his list is it?

I don't bounce it now, just delete it on the server rather than create more traffic, especially as
much of it is from faked addresses, or so I believe.
--
Gordon

Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

Yes, I understand what you were getting at, I'm looking forward to demon starting their spam
filtering, albeit belatedly, I know people using AOL who get no spam, yet lots of mine come from
AOL and Hotmail etc!

I still think it's better to do your own filtering - AOL's filters are generally reckoned to catch
genuine emails too. The moment I get any proof of that I'll switch ISPs.

The method sounds good to me. They (or an agent) set up false addresses which are exposed to web
sites and ngs long enough to be trawled into the spammers net.

Then all mail addressed to those false addresses results in the sender being blocked. Only spammers
would be sending mail to the fake addresses, so it shouldn't trap genuine mail.
--
Gordon

Fran <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook said:

Eggsackerly. I just delete the stuff in Mailwasher.

So you manually untick all the bounce boxes?

No, see my other post.

Quoted message said:

How much spam do you get each day? I'm up to 600 a day now.

Only 600? I'm just glad my Freeserve accounts seem to have lapsed, because last time I was actually
able to access them (two of them) there were over 4,000 between them, collected over 48 hours.

Wow! I get about 200/250 per day via Demon, and I thought that was bad! In Mailwasher you can set it
to delete rather than bounce.

I make heavy use of blacklisting whole domains, but expire them after 60 days to keep the list
reasonable.
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys

at the keyboard of Fran said:

Paul, there's a very compelling reason for *not* bouncing spam, and that's the fact of all those
undeliverables.

Bounces will (as good as) never go back to a spammer. The only time it will is when they're sending
out probes for whether they can hijack you.

If you bounce spam, they *can* hijack you. The bounce itself can - and often does - become a spam
message to innocent third-parties.

I just refuse spam at the server. My server refuses over 4000 a day. But that's not an option if you
just collect your mail from an ISP.

--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have an enquiry he knew would be damaging into a
minor side-issue of going to war.

So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?