Jump to content

Oldest Man To Close The #4 Coc.


moonraker182

Recommended Posts

Randall Strossen

Ben -

I didn't look up their exact certification dates, but the 1" rule was in effect from February 2003 - March 2004 and yes both Dave and Tommy certified in those years so both might have certified in that narrow windown

Arturo -

Yes, I'm guilty of that: oversimplifying things and calling anything less than a credit card width a deep set so I'll try to quit making that error.

On WVS, I think that got started because Steve Gardener said that he thought touching the handles on a CoC No. 4 over any distance was meritorious and should count as closing it, so I said that I wasn't strong enough even to deep set one (I think he was talking about a stroke shorter than parallel, so maybe that term is ok to use this way?,) but I could close one with the help of a Wilton vise, and that was the birth of the WVS. The point I was trying to make was that at some point, everybody would reject something as being too short to count as a close—just as there are some squats that are so high, even the apologists for high squats might say, "I don't know about that one."

Wannagrip -

I think this will happen this year—somebody will certify on the CoC No. 4. I have been saying this every year for the last several years, so sooner or later I will quit being wrong about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Randall Strossen

    52

  • jad

    33

  • Cannon

    9

  • Bojast

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Check out the axle dead lift challenge!

Me, Paul, Mobster. There's 3. - Aaron

Josh Dale and Steve McGranahan also come to mind. I wanted to say Woodall as well, but I checked the contest I was thinking about and that was a BBSE he closed. I concede that "quite a few" is ambi

Forever

Ben -

I didn't look up their exact certification dates, but the 1" rule was in effect from February 2003 - March 2004 and yes both Dave and Tommy certified in those years so both might have certified in that narrow windown

Arturo -

Yes, I'm guilty of that: oversimplifying things and calling anything less than a credit card width a deep set so I'll try to quit making that error.

On WVS, I think that got started because Steve Gardener said that he thought touching the handles on a CoC No. 4 over any distance was meritorious and should count as closing it, so I said that I wasn't strong enough even to deep set one (I think he was talking about a stroke shorter than parallel, so maybe that term is ok to use this way?,) but I could close one with the help of a Wilton vise, and that was the birth of the WVS. The point I was trying to make was that at some point, everybody would reject something as being too short to count as a close—just as there are some squats that are so high, even the apologists for high squats might say, "I don't know about that one."

Wannagrip -

I think this will happen this year—somebody will certify on the CoC No. 4. I have been saying this every year for the last several years, so sooner or later I will quit being wrong about it!

Great to see you here Mr.S...yes one day someone will cert on your #4! What a day that will be :cool

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely, full disclosure is always good, but it gets sticky because the full part can erode or disappear as the reports of the feat get reported (especially over time).

Regarding 'full disclosure' and 'erosion of the full part': what about separating (on the IM COC roster) the certifications done with the old rules (i.e. pre CCS) VS the new rules (post CCS)?

I know it may not be a great move from a 'short term' business perspective (some customers may get a bit angry), but it could also reinforce IM image in the long run.

I know it would for me - and I already have a high consideration for your company and the way you run it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Ben -

I didn't look up their exact certification dates, but the 1" rule was in effect from February 2003 - March 2004 and yes both Dave and Tommy certified in those years so both might have certified in that narrow windown

Arturo -

Yes, I'm guilty of that: oversimplifying things and calling anything less than a credit card width a deep set so I'll try to quit making that error.

On WVS, I think that got started because Steve Gardener said that he thought touching the handles on a CoC No. 4 over any distance was meritorious and should count as closing it, so I said that I wasn't strong enough even to deep set one (I think he was talking about a stroke shorter than parallel, so maybe that term is ok to use this way?,) but I could close one with the help of a Wilton vise, and that was the birth of the WVS. The point I was trying to make was that at some point, everybody would reject something as being too short to count as a close—just as there are some squats that are so high, even the apologists for high squats might say, "I don't know about that one."

Wannagrip -

I think this will happen this year—somebody will certify on the CoC No. 4. I have been saying this every year for the last several years, so sooner or later I will quit being wrong about it!

Great to see you here Mr.S...yes one day someone will cert on your #4! What a day that will be :cool

Thank you very much!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Yes, absolutely, full disclosure is always good, but it gets sticky because the full part can erode or disappear as the reports of the feat get reported (especially over time).

Regarding 'full disclosure' and 'erosion of the full part': what about separating (on the IM COC roster) the certifications done with the old rules (i.e. pre CCS) VS the new rules (post CCS)?

I know it may not be a great move from a 'short term' business perspective (some customers may get a bit angry), but it could also reinforce IM image in the long run.

I know it would for me - and I already have a high consideration for your company and the way you run it.

Good question and here's an offer: a free CoC gripper or IMTUG to the first person (besides me) who can address Amaury's comment about "old rules," "new rules," etc. and the big hint is that besides having been addressed by myself probably about as many times as I've talked about calibration, dog legs and seasoning, there's even at least one article on this very topic in the IronMind news column (which is easily searched).

Link to post
Share on other sites
functionalpower

I think, Mr. Strossen, you are referring to this article

http://www.ironmind.com/ironmind/opencms/Articles/2008/Jun/Certification_on_Captains_of_Crushx_Grippers_xCredit_Card_Setsx__xOld_Rulesx_and_xNew_Rulesx_.html

in which you state that the CC-rule was installed to preserve the quality and spirit of the certification and not to make it harder.

And I remember that you also once wrote that all COCs, pre- and post-2004 were once and for all seen as having unequivocally earned their status by adhering to the (minimum) standards of the Certification (in terms of starting position)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I think, Mr. Strossen, you are referring to this article

http://www.ironmind....ew_Rulesx_.html

in which you state that the CC-rule was installed to preserve the quality and spirit of the certification and not to make it harder.

And I remember that you also once wrote that all COCs, pre- and post-2004 were once and for all seen as having unequivocally earned their status by adhering to the (minimum) standards of the Certification (in terms of starting position)!

Yes, thank you, you've found a key article on this topic and certainly picked up some of the essential points, so please send IronMind your name, address and choice of CoC/IMTUG and we'll get it on its way to you.

If someone wants to expand on this, I'd say the offer still stands for the next person who wants to add to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, Mr. Strossen, you are referring to this article

http://www.ironmind....ew_Rulesx_.html

in which you state that the CC-rule was installed to preserve the quality and spirit of the certification and not to make it harder.

And I remember that you also once wrote that all COCs, pre- and post-2004 were once and for all seen as having unequivocally earned their status by adhering to the (minimum) standards of the Certification (in terms of starting position)!

I have a few questions regarding the "sweet spot" referred to in the article:

1. So prior to the 1" rule this mysterious sweet spot was 2 1/8" starting distance just like your average credit card? I assume it would have to be since it's implied the rules haven't changed other than the 1" rule era.

2. And how do we know that all of the previous CoC prior to 1" era had a sweet spot that was 2 1/8" or more?

In case you can't tell I find it pretty hard to believe that prior to KTA none of these other CoC were setting a gripper deeper than CC or 1".

Link to post
Share on other sites
lifesnotfair

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/ironmind/opencms/Articles/2009/Jul/Captains_of_Crush_Certification_Same_As_It_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I think, Mr. Strossen, you are referring to this article

http://www.ironmind....ew_Rulesx_.html

in which you state that the CC-rule was installed to preserve the quality and spirit of the certification and not to make it harder.

And I remember that you also once wrote that all COCs, pre- and post-2004 were once and for all seen as having unequivocally earned their status by adhering to the (minimum) standards of the Certification (in terms of starting position)!

I have a few questions regarding the "sweet spot" referred to in the article:

1. So prior to the 1" rule this mysterious sweet spot was 2 1/8" starting distance just like your average credit card? I assume it would have to be since it's implied the rules haven't changed other than the 1" rule era.

2. And how do we know that all of the previous CoC prior to 1" era had a sweet spot that was 2 1/8" or more?

In case you can't tell I find it pretty hard to believe that prior to KTA none of these other CoC were setting a gripper deeper than CC or 1".

JAD -

If the parallel set was not a radical departure in how grippers were closed, why did it only surface post-KTA?

Yes, you are absolutely right: undoubtedly post-KTA there were some guys who were using a parallel set and getting certified which is why IronMind had to begin legislating the minimum distance, which we first tried to do with the 1" rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron Jacobs

I thought Joe Kinney's #4 close was an inside joke. He really closed it? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I thought Joe Kinney's #4 close was an inside joke. He really closed it? Really?

Yes, absolutely, full disclosure is always good, but it gets sticky because the full part can erode or disappear as the reports of the feat get reported (especially over time).

Regarding 'full disclosure' and 'erosion of the full part': what about separating (on the IM COC roster) the certifications done with the old rules (i.e. pre CCS) VS the new rules (post CCS)?

I know it may not be a great move from a 'short term' business perspective (some customers may get a bit angry), but it could also reinforce IM image in the long run.

I know it would for me - and I already have a high consideration for your company and the way you run it.

Well, I guess I won the next CoC/IMTUG; here's the story:

http://www.ironmind.com/ironmind/opencms/Articles/2004/Mar/Captains_of_Crushx_Certification_No_Second-Class_Citizens.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, Mr. Strossen, you are referring to this article

http://www.ironmind....ew_Rulesx_.html

in which you state that the CC-rule was installed to preserve the quality and spirit of the certification and not to make it harder.

And I remember that you also once wrote that all COCs, pre- and post-2004 were once and for all seen as having unequivocally earned their status by adhering to the (minimum) standards of the Certification (in terms of starting position)!

I have a few questions regarding the "sweet spot" referred to in the article:

1. So prior to the 1" rule this mysterious sweet spot was 2 1/8" starting distance just like your average credit card? I assume it would have to be since it's implied the rules haven't changed other than the 1" rule era.

2. And how do we know that all of the previous CoC prior to 1" era had a sweet spot that was 2 1/8" or more?

In case you can't tell I find it pretty hard to believe that prior to KTA none of these other CoC were setting a gripper deeper than CC or 1".

JAD -

If the parallel set was not a radical departure in how grippers were closed, why did it only surface post-KTA?

Yes, you are absolutely right: undoubtedly post-KTA there were some guys who were using a parallel set and getting certified which is why IronMind had to begin legislating the minimum distance, which we first tried to do with the 1" rule.

Because prior to the Gripboard and the Internet to a larger extent, how many guys were talking about grippers on that level of detail and fervor and/or had the communication means to do so? Undoubtedly, pre-KTA, there were some and by some I mean several, guys using a parallel set. Secondly, on some grippers parallel can be 1" but let's assume it's .75"; were you really that concerned about .25" and if so why did you more than double the distance to ~2.13"? A quarter is another easily accessible item and much closer to the magic 1".

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

The problem is you have drastically changed the rules and then make perjorative comments (eg WVS)

about closes that were within your rules at one point but now are somehow not real closes

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

KTA was a one of kind program, provided for relatively little cost, promoted at the number one place for a very specialized audience. It's marketing mix alone all but guarantees success. Also, thanks to the GB you had a much larger audience for your grippers which means you'd have more people training on them and certing. Pulling the blob has become pretty common as well; is that because of some cheater move in Blob KTA or the fact that more people are actually hearing about it, learning how to train for it, and have the strength for when they finally get to try one.

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lifesnotfair

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

By my way of thinking? Perhaps you're confusing me with amaury who suggested sepparating those in the list.

I honestly thought I had won a gripper. I found/read the article you just linked, and dimissed it as the one I linked in my previous reply seemed even more appropiate as an answer to amaury's suggestion. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

The problem is you have drastically changed the rules and then make perjorative comments (eg WVS)

about closes that were within your rules at one point but now are somehow not real closes

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

KTA was a one of kind program, provided for relatively little cost, promoted at the number one place for a very specialized audience. It's marketing mix alone all but guarantees success. Also, thanks to the GB you had a much larger audience for your grippers which means you'd have more people training on them and certing. Pulling the blob has become pretty common as well; is that because of some cheater move in Blob KTA or the fact that more people are actually hearing about it, learning how to train for it, and have the strength for when they finally get to try one.

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Looks like I still haven't learned how to pick up multiple quotes to use in one reply, but this is as good a place as any to start because if JAD read the short article about no second class citizens he would understand he's got the story backwards.

Absolutely true that KTA has a lot of good stuff in it and the deep set is only a part of the mix, but it's what really set things apart for guys who wanted to suddenly appear to be 0.5 gripper stronger than they really are (the Corlett Constant), if you accept the fact the deep set/parallel set/MM set or whatever you want to call it is a partial movement.

The traditional way to close a gripper is over what's essentially its full range of motion, not just a lockout at the end. You take offense at being told this obvious truth and would like to portray me as a villain for pointing it out to you, but this stuff is no different than squatting and can't really be debated: cut the depth and increase the weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

By my way of thinking? Perhaps you're confusing me with amaury who suggested sepparating those in the list.

I honestly thought I had won a gripper. I found/read the article you just linked, and dimissed it as the one I linked in my previous reply seemed even more appropiate as an answer to amaury's suggestion. :(

Arturo -

Probably so as I get all the screen names mixed up and am pretty lame at navigating and posting replies, so how about you tell us what the point of that article was and can collect the CoC/IMTUG if you'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

It's a demonstration of how to deep set: "Nathan shows the steps in training with partials on a Captains of Crush Gripper—in this case, a No. 4(!)" (page 157).

Which part of that was confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Interesting archives and thank you for sharing this.

The claims that everyone pre-CCS deep set or that everyone post KTA deep set on their CoC certification attempts would never hold up under careful thought or close inspection, and there's nothing wrong with having introduced and formalized deep sets; in fact, I consider it a milestone in gripper training. On the other hand, it was IronMind's job to say, fine, that can be a good training technique, but it doesn't count for a CoC certification. It's too bad that some guys took that personally since their sense of entitlement included recognition for short-stroke gripper closes or they simply can't acknowledge the physical reality sitting in the palm of their hand.

I think this thread is good in that JAD, for example, can assert things or ask questions and I can reply directly—it's always good for each of us to check what we think we know.

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

:laugh

Link to post
Share on other sites
lifesnotfair

Arturo -

Probably so as I get all the screen names mixed up and am pretty lame at navigating and posting replies, so how about you tell us what the point of that article was and can collect the CoC/IMTUG if you'd like.

It's ok Mr. Strossen but I would have like to have won it for real and not on second chances, heh heh. Thanks for the opportunity though. I just thought the article I linked was actually a more in-depth explination and better suited as an answer to amaury's question. After all, this article begins with: "“I would like to ask what is the reason that the certifications with different rules are on the same list, without even mentioning that they are done with different rules?" .... which is nearly the same as amaury's question, and you went in depht about 1991, KTA, Bill Piche, Joe Kinney, Richard Sorin, people diluting the certification, the game not having changed, etc. etc. So I respectfully leave this thread, grab some pop-corn (kidding) and await for Jad's reply and look forward to your conversation with him. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

The problem is you have drastically changed the rules and then make perjorative comments (eg WVS)

about closes that were within your rules at one point but now are somehow not real closes

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

KTA was a one of kind program, provided for relatively little cost, promoted at the number one place for a very specialized audience. It's marketing mix alone all but guarantees success. Also, thanks to the GB you had a much larger audience for your grippers which means you'd have more people training on them and certing. Pulling the blob has become pretty common as well; is that because of some cheater move in Blob KTA or the fact that more people are actually hearing about it, learning how to train for it, and have the strength for when they finally get to try one.

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Looks like I still haven't learned how to pick up multiple quotes to use in one reply, but this is as good a place as any to start because if JAD read the short article about no second class citizens he would understand he's got the story backwards.

Absolutely true that KTA has a lot of good stuff in it and the deep set is only a part of the mix, but it's what really set things apart for guys who wanted to suddenly appear to be 0.5 gripper stronger than they really are (the Corlett Constant), if you accept the fact the deep set/parallel set/MM set or whatever you want to call it is a partial movement.

The traditional way to close a gripper is over what's essentially its full range of motion, not just a lockout at the end. You take offense at being told this obvious truth and would like to portray me as a villain for pointing it out to you, but this stuff is no different than squatting and can't really be debated: cut the depth and increase the weight.

Which you seem to forget when you make your WVC comments. The same set you're making fun of is what was likely used by all of the #4 certs except Kinney and while I personally believe Kinney's close; there's no lack of controversey surrounding that one as well. I'd be interested if Dave, Tommy, or Nathan claim to have used a wider than parallel set. The only #4 vid I've seen of Magnus is so clouded you can't even tell if he closed it with two and is holding it with one or has actually shut it with one but it wouldn't even pass our parallel set cert here on the board; not even close.

Is this the correct timeline then?

Beginning to 2003: no defined set distance but everyone pre-KTA was using a full range of motion which is anything 2.13" or greater

2003-2004: KTA has bred the deep setter so legit closes are now 1" or greater. This has drastically reduced it from 2.13" but is a real close or real enough to allow you to certify

2004-present: set distance is now 2.13" or greater and we've taken an additional step of measuring it with a credit card/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Interesting archives and thank you for sharing this.

The claims that everyone pre-CCS deep set or that everyone post KTA deep set on their CoC certification attempts would never hold up under careful thought or close inspection, and there's nothing wrong with having introduced and formalized deep sets; in fact, I consider it a milestone in gripper training. On the other hand, it was IronMind's job to say, fine, that can be a good training technique, but it doesn't count for a CoC certification. It's too bad that some guys took that personally since their sense of entitlement included recognition for short-stroke gripper closes or they simply can't acknowledge the physical reality sitting in the palm of their hand.

I think this thread is good in that JAD, for example, can assert things or ask questions and I can reply directly—it's always good for each of us to check what we think we know.

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

:laugh

Except during the 1" era but again those KTA rascals may have set it a quarter inch too deep, depending on the gripper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.