Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:45:30 -0500
>>It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
>>really has to know is what it does.
>
>
>But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
>word of everyone else in this group.
What's my word based on? A test. What's your word based on?
Consensus?
> But according to you, "we should
>never trust the claim of others. You and me included."
No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.
> So dig right
>into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
>makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?
I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 102" whip
- From: Frank Gilliland
- Re: 102" whip
- References:
- Re: 102" whip
- From: Frank Gilliland
- Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom
- Re: 102" whip
- From: jim
- Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom
- Re: 102" whip
- From: jim
- Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom
- Re: 102" whip
- From: jim
- Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom
- Re: 102" whip
- From: Frank Gilliland
- Re: 102" whip
- From: tnom
- Re: 102" whip
- From: Frank Gilliland
- Re: 102" whip
- Prev by Date: Re: 102" whip
- Next by Date: Re: Eimac Tube Cooling?!?!
- Previous by thread: Re: 102" whip
- Next by thread: Re: 102" whip
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|