Question about infill planes

Re: Question about infill planes

Frank D. in Montreal

>Hi Greg,

I'm feeling a little guilty about having given you so much work. I didn't want to make a big deal of it, I even waited a while so the thread would slip down a little, but I did feel your criticism of Joel was a little harsh as you stated it in your original post. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I think in your last post you made it a lot clearer why you thought Lyn made a much more convincing argument. You found Joel's elaboration of his experience with infills to be insufficient; that's fair enough. I guess you did say that in your first post too and maybe I just got hung up on the rest. You didn't simply blame Joel for being unscientific or emotional etc. Even if personal experience remains relatively anecdotal compared to rigorous research, it is still a valid basis for discussion, especially for someone who has significant experience. So maybe Joel could have made a better argument, but that shouldn't irritate anyone. Otherwise we'll just listen to Lyn talk to Lyn about planes, and call it "Lyn Central". Of course I'm just kidding here, but that's kind of what I was trying to get at when I responded to your post. A challenge was the farthest thing from my mind.

Frank

Re: Question about infill planes

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>No problem! *grin*

I do think it helped me and you see more clearly what I was getting at. Namely that if one wants to learn, one needs more than the "summary conclusion." Details and knowing the reasons why are where it's at!

I do understand where you're coming from and I'm partially sympathetic to it. However, the general trend I see here is that if we err, it's far too often on the side of pure opinion and such with no real discussion as to whys, details etc. I think we'd all learn a lot more if we err'd more often on the too much detail, too much science front.

Truely, thanks for your comments.

Cheers,

Greg