Yes, I guess I was trying to "detract from your offering." I do have a
problem with things being sold with an implication that they're
something they're not. You should have been more explicit about what
era they were copying, not to mention I take exception to the email
subject "Serge Rack Ears." That should have been "Serge COPY rack ears".
And secondly, if you compare the early '80s folded metal rack ears to
what's used now, they do constitue "flimsy crap." One of many
improvements since then was making the panels, chassis boxes, and rack
ears much more solid than in the early days.
Try to be a little more explicit next time and there won't be a problem.
And here ends my diatribe... :-)
Tim
mm123 ah wrote:
problem with things being sold with an implication that they're
something they're not. You should have been more explicit about what
era they were copying, not to mention I take exception to the email
subject "Serge Rack Ears." That should have been "Serge COPY rack ears".
And secondly, if you compare the early '80s folded metal rack ears to
what's used now, they do constitue "flimsy crap." One of many
improvements since then was making the panels, chassis boxes, and rack
ears much more solid than in the early days.
Try to be a little more explicit next time and there won't be a problem.
And here ends my diatribe... :-)
Tim
mm123 ah wrote:
>
>The only problem that I have here is that, in an effort to detract from my
>offering, Tim suggested that they were flimsy crap, which they are not. I
>would like to know how the current standard is any different from these.
>FYI, the photo makes it look like the metal used is thin, however, it is not
>all that thin and like I already said, it's unbendable by my standards.
>