Actually nothing was wrong with what he said, if you would read what I wrote
I did not disagree with him. I offered 1) an explanation of why the trans
was designed that way, and 2) a constructive suggestion for an easier method
to fill that sucker. You will also notice that I put my response ABOVE his
post not below as some people do. This means that you only had to read the
original question if you had a) forgotten it, or b) your browser does like
mine and sometimes does not give messages in the order sent. For example:
Tonight I got a response about the clutch banjo fitting 21 e-mails BEFORE the
question. If the respondent had not included the text of the post he was
responding to I would have been sitting here trying to buy a vowel as I would
have had no clue. (not that is much different from normal :-) This also
comes in handy when someone responds to a post that is a week old.
My suggestion would be to stop reading at the point where the clip starts.
Rick Ewald
In a message dated 4/18/99 8:05:07 PM SA Eastern Standard Time,
JustBrits@aol.com writes:
> So Rick, whats wrong with what Neil Said?? WHY did you have to cite the
> ENTIRE (hate the word also) thread????
>
|