Bob=85thank you for your attention to my build photo and for alerting me
to this issue, however vexing you may find it.
I am simply baffled to learn that you find =93there is already enough
shit flying about on the issue=94 and that it=92s an example showing
that =93people just can=92t read and interpret the English
language=94=85please do not attempt to elaborate=85I can do without
further discussion which you find unsuitable for posting on Matronics.
Fred
On May 22, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Bob Harrison <ptag.dev@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Hi! Tony /Fred.
> To try to help you over this vexed issue concerning the clevis forks I
just spoke to a local friend on the issue ....his immediate response was
that he had removed =BC=94 but when I questioned him further he started
to apply some engineering reason to the issue and suggested that we
probably both removed 1/8=94 from each clevice to ensure there was
adequate thread purchase left on both clevices. Which is the principle I
would apply , the only thing better is to remove it from one and check
the operational clearance as to whether it is necessary to do the other
too.
> I=92m not publishing this on the Matronics site since there is already
enough shit flying about on the issue , people just can=92t read and
interpret the English language !
> Regards
> Bob H
|