|
From: Pav <bobhog@pin.co.nz> What a bloody cock-up. Didn't anyone from Dud Ant think to compare what they were working towards, against the target finished product (ie was anyone at Dadant's in possession of some Lusby 4.9, and cross-checking as they went: "will the mill we are building duplicate this product?")? If not, why not? And if so, how did they still manage to get it WRONG? Okay, so it may be good 5.0 foundation, but do we let them market it as 4.9 foundation (thereby, when it doesn't control the mite on account of not being small enough, discrediting genuine 4.9 foundation)? To my mind, Dadant should take it on the chin on account of their stuff-up, and build the correct mill. If they feel the error is not theirs and they want to continue with their current less-effective investment, at least label it honestly: "Dadant 5.0 foundation". Let 4.9 stand or fall on its own merits, not on some poor imitation. -Pav PS i am refraining from sending this to Jerry Hayes <Class@dadant.com> as this may just be my solitary unbalanced, unrepresentative ranting viewpoint, but if anyone agrees with these sentiments, say so and i will send him a copy: i think he'd deserve to know. At 13/02/01 08:58:00, Eric
wrote: __________________________________ |