[12 piece bucket]

Jeff,

I have no problem with arguments and counters thereto, it is the life blood of any forum. My "offense", maybe not the most well chosen word, arises out of your modus operandi where certain examples you put forward in support of your stance appear to be based on no other scientific principle than "look, this bloke (choice of bloke varies as to which one best suits your purpose) doesn't do it so it cannot be so".

Simple as that. I have no other issues with you and, indeed, welcome your input in the various forums we both enjoy. You have much to offer and raise questions that cause not only me, I suspect, to have a little rethink on various aspects from time to time.

Bucket,




I do realise that no one has an uncompensated stroke and thought I had made that point plainly enough without pigeon holing Homer.

Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that Homer would likely "enjoy the discourse". But, he would have preferred any discourse to be based on sounder scientific principles than those occasionally put forward by Jeff - this bloke doesn't do it, see, so it cannot be right. Know what I'm saying?

B . . . We're tight so I understand where you come from. I just don't want to see things turn into let's pile on Jeff session.

Homer said there were millions of workable patterns.

AND you can have the club pointing at the plane line and STILL hit a stinker shot.