Well, that wasn't very kind, was it?
And how do you know what my intentions are regarding cases? I've just sold a couple I didn't like and am now looking to reinvest the proceeds. I sold one of yours, I think, an old instroke buffalo. Too heavy, and strangely sterile.
Anyway, a couple of things:
1. This thread was created to hear about other case makers, so kindly stay out of it. Your sandwich board ads are all over it. Let other case makers have a go for a change.
2. You don't want people questioning the benefits of one item for sale - aiming systems, say - but you see it as your moral duty to inform the world about minor differences in production techniques employed by a rival casemaker. One criticism is hurtful and damaging to the reputation of the seller, whilst the other is a public service and your mission in life to keep people fully informed and protected. John 'Both Ways' Barton.
As ever, dude, gotcha.
Anyway, that's rhetorical. No need for an 80 paragraph response on your hypocrisy, as utterly amusing as that would be.
Wrong.
The difference is that I have studied cases from all aspects. I have dissected just about every cue case made. So when I say something about them it is 100% true.
When you speak about aiming systems it is from a position of ignorance.
I have ten years of experience with them so my statements are based on facts and on - table experience.
If a criticism is true such as inadequate protection or false advertising about where the case is made then it is my duty to expose that.
Your criticisms of aiming systems are not true.
So no as usual you didn't get me. You can't trap me because my position on cases and aiming systems is built on solid facts.
