"Al Superczynski" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
That's your word against mine.
while on the other hand I had some
Because this particular aircraft and its kits happen to have my interest now and not years ago.
simply asked you where your
You are merely embarrassing yourself by your twisting and turning. There is nothing wrong with quoting someone else's research. It only becomes embarrassing when one is trying to keep up appearances and have to own up eventually.
Whose sources are these then?
the Matt drawings are the best
That seems obvious to me when you use the same source.
No it ain't. It's your assertion against his perception. Curiously, I share his perception, based on exterior facts you either haven't considered, or do not choose to, such as:
[1] Al's long-standing no-BS review style, on here and elsewhere on the 'net. [2] The unnecessarily belligerent tone you have taken repeatedly with those who have clearly demonstrated here that their politics are conservative or reactionary. To my way of thinking, Al is conservative. Tell'ya what--I'm a liberal--why don't you take a few shots at me? It'll make everyone else feel much better, and as a professional victim, I won't mind. [3] The fact that his review of the C-45 kits in question is largely correct. I think I like the Pioneer a touch better than the Hobbycraft, but they are both dimensionally flawed (I believe the Pioneer also has a problem with nacelle shape).
Now, Al is a big boy, fully capable of defending himself, I should think. I'm not interjecting my 2 cents for his sake, just my own. If you're going to take hacks at other folks in this forum, you need to show more imagination. Your verbal assaults are no longer entertaining because they have become so predictable and content-free. Please try to do better in the future.
What a coincidence! It's interesting to me that it wasn't you who initially asked me to back up my opinion of the Hobbycraft kit....
I'll type this really slowly so you can understand. I did not quote anyone else's research. I did my own, even including some primary sources. Got it yet?
No shit, Sherlock. Why are you surprised that two people could reach the same conclusions about a kit?
"Mark Schynert" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@news02.west.earthlink.net...
Well, that remains yours and Al's perception. There is very little I can do about that, even if I wanted to.
Curiously, I
Indeed this is *your* perception. To me Al is better known for spreading of his political views, rather than being a great modeller. And being reluctant to answer for his statements concerning modelling doesn't help much for altering that image I must say. Unlike many of you guys I usually don't content myself with other's statements without proper background. Not even when a bunch of halfwits concur with these statements just because Al says so.
Don't worry. I will when I see fit.
All kits have their shortcomings. Some more, some less, there is no dispute about that. Much more interesting is to find out and point out these flaws together with proper argumentation and to share what can be done about it. Coincidently I have built the Pioneer kit myself. Al states that the passenger windows are too low and too far forward. I say, that depends on what you take as reference point. He also states that the cockpit glass area is both too low and misshapen. I disagree. I don't see what is misshapen about it other than I think it is too long and too high. But that can easily be taken care of by painting a portion of the clear part. If for example the entire cockpit roof of the Revell Atlantic kit is a clear part, that doesn't mean it is misshapen does it? One is supposed to paint the part except for the windows. You say that there are problems with the nacelles. I'm not so sure about that. So, all these statements do not appear very convincing to me. Therefore I want to know where the information comes from to verify it myself before I accept it as truth. That's what my question was all about, nothing more.
That makes one wonder. My simple question provoked reactions from three others so far.
I'm not interjecting my 2 cents for his sake, just my own. If
Ha ha... no imagination whatsoever is required to pull down some pants from asses in this newsgroup. I visit this newsgroup exclusively for *my* own entertainment. Let there be no mistake about that.
I would have if I had read your comments a little sooner.
quote: " See Norm Filer's reply. I used the same sources he did, along with personal observations of the real thing at the N. Little Rock airport."
If I would say "I have seached the internet and found the kit comparison pictures on the Aircraft walkaround center website", would you call that my own research?
I'm not. It is obvious that you reach the same conclusion because the sources and research methods are one and the same. In that case there is not much room left for different conclusions is there?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.