bill_troop1 Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 >This thread is increasingly off-topic. If you want to discuss anything beyond the possibility that Clayton is providing inaccurate information about its products, could you please start another thread? I'm waiting to hear from people, Clayton in particular, with some actual numbers about their products. I suspect that's all that anyone who clicked here is interested in learning about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reuben_c Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Wow, someone really needs to get over himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_divenuti Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Actually, I think Bill is quite correct. We get an abundance of personal diatribes...though the disputes being aired here are more civil than most. Requests for legitimate data of consequence based on objective tests, however, are at a premium. I would like to see Clayton step up to the plate. I doubt they will because past experience suggests they don't have this data available and have little desire to gather it. Maybe they should change that email address to "tellus@clayton.chem"? It's just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reuben_c Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I wasn't talking about Bill. :) (The agonies of the non-threaded thread architecture strike again!) Give me tree hierarchy, or give me... confusion. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now