Subject: Re: [harryproa] Equivalency numbers
From: "'.' eruttan@yahoo.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 7/7/2018, 9:54 PM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 



On July 8, 2018 12:47:18 AM UTC, "StoneTool owly@ttc-cmc.net [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
|Rob:
|     I'm thoroughly confused..............  Let's look at line 3 (green).   

Made perfect sense to me. But I am not gonna jump through the hoops to try and undo your bias.

Since there seems to be a communication difficulty, you should probably slow down to one question at a time, on one topic at a time, and not try for the gestalt in one go.

Your original source material was unsourced, and biased against composites. No one uses triax, its stupid, as pointed out by Rob.

Honestly I wish we had a forum, because Robs reply was probably one of the most informative I had read in a long time. Should be rated 5 stars. Bookmarked.

__._,_.___

Posted by: "." <eruttan@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a new topic Messages in this topic (20)

SPONSORED LINKS
.

__,_._,___