c903

So far, every one seems to be stuck on the " grouping" issue no matter how many times and ways I have explained; I am not referring to how one can get different types of arrows to group together, I have been asking question regarding the claim that has redirected the original subject in this thread.

A few have " pork barreled" a claim that when a shaft is mounted with a fieldpoint, SPINE IS NO CONCERN, and one can perfectly tune and underspined shaft regardless the shaft remains underspined.

Also, if you cannot argue different theories, especially if you are the person who made the claim, without submitting your hurt feelings and your overly smart-a$$ comments, maybe you should not play with the older boys. Maybe you should take your toys and go home. These types of issues often entail comments that " one-liners" cannot address completely and correctly.

Len: You have a history of stating or inferring that your arguments and opinions rise above all, because you say or insinuate in different ways, you are an " ….engineering type and you are a different breed that must be shown." Which is ok, that is your style.

You claim to have to data that supports your claims/arguments, an insinuation that your data makes you right and subordinates the theories and experiences of the " common people." Regardless of all the " data" you may possess, a reliable indicator that information (findings) may still be a hypothesis and not universally accepted as an inarguable fact, is when opposite beliefs still exist.

Here a paraphrased piece of a doctrine stated by a genius. He suggested that this rule (doctrine) is and will always remain vital to science and scientific (technological) progress.

" There is no particular reason to believe that the conclusion about what should be done, when reached by a scientist (physicist, engineer, journeyman, etc,) is any better or any more logical than the conclusion reached by a politician, or by the general public. If a scientist takes pride in the belief that only empirical methods produce knowledge and everything else is erroneous or irrelevant, then the resulting ignorance of other thought processes, disciplines and people is more likely to produce a bad decision than a good one. Knowledge, thinking, decisions, and their consequences are interrelated. Science provides one of many methods of thinking and of obtaining knowledge; it is most effective when integrated with others as well. That is; it is impractical to think only one way."

silentassassin

I know people that will argue until they are blue in the face that we never actually went to the moon. I doubt seriously that you can come up with information or findings that are universally agreed with. I would certainly be interseted to such a finding that no one dissented.

That sounds like it was written by a politician. I think most " pracitcal" people with an average amount of common sense would tell you " there is no substitue for experience" . That is why we have scientists and engineers running the space program, not politicians or the general public.

Pinwheel 12

Fletchead-

You' re right, we never have agreed on this! And like I said before, everyone here can choose to do whatever they like, but I' d really like to see both broadheads and FP' s hit the same hole. I know they cannot, I' ve been around awhile myself and have played the game here also. There are always variables. Close, maybe, not arguing that fact at all, but I prefer to have each individual setup tuned to perfection, not just generalize all to a happy medium. i personally find the setups to be much more forgiving this way. My choice, you choose differently and that is your choice.

So yes, we' ll have to continue to agree to disagree, no biggie.

It' s good to voice our opinions tho so people can make their own decisions based upon the input and from whom they are getting the input from.

I' m just glad someone else is taking most of the flack for a change.... Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

c903

Silent

The " doctrine" was constituted by Albert Einstein.

Stickemup

C903,
This is the statement you seem to be so hung up on. Why, I have no idea. Would it suit you better if I had said an underspined arrow can SEEMINGLY tune perfectly with FP' s, but will impact differently with BH' s???

The reason I said it can tune perfectly is because the underspined shafts I had trouble with DID tune perfectly. They even shot a perfect bullet hole with a bare shaft. That same bare shaft also flew perfectly to the target out to thirty yards and impacted just below the fletched arrows, just like they are supposed to. There was no problem with them at all except with broadheads. The main reason I mentioned this is so that others will know that getting an arrow to shoot bullet holes is not necessarily the end of it. It CAN be underspined and shoot bullet holes. This means that one should always shoot broadheads (preferably fixed blade) to ensure that the arrow will fly correctly with them. If it is flying well with broadheads and impacting the same as the FP' s then the spine is most likely OK. If, however they impact differently than the FP' s after the bow has been tuned, then the spine is the first thing I would investigate. If the broadheads act finicky and are very sensitive to form, the shafts may be on the borderline. Turning the poundage down or going to a slightly stiffer shaft should correct the problem.

Now, if you would like to continue to discuss this and actually add something useful to the discussion, I' m game. If however, you continue to just play with words and not add anything useful, I will do as Fletchhead did and take my perfectly tuned and great shooting bow and walk away.

Your last couple of posts remind me of Clinton on the witness stand. You know your busted, so you try to change the focus of the thread. It didn' t work for Clinton and it ain' t working very well for you either.

Edit: What kind of bow did Albert Einstein shoot??

silentassassin

That makes sense. I have yet to meet a " genius" that had more than a meager supply of common sense. That quote (the way I interpret it) says that a politician knows as much about building a bridge as a structural engineer. While I lack Mr. Einstein' s " book sense" my common sense tells me that this is not correct.

ijimmy

Stickemup I think this was the answer the original poster was looking for , good advise .

c903

Stickemup

Being that I am one who speaks for himself and have and always said what I believe, regardless of controversy and that the opposition might be and remain in the majority, I guess, you are left with no choice but to pack your gear and walk away.

As for this statement:

I simply chose to reply the other pieces of pork that was being thrown into the barrel, as some fight, to get the " BH should group with FP" tuning issue to be accepted as a fact and accepted by all....as you want me to at this moment.

Some, as you have, try to use personal assault tactics to gain ground or intimidate. That' s cool! I have my legs in line with my shoulders, my knees slightly bent, and my feet planted.

JOE PA

I don' t know about broadheads and field points anymore, but I think I understand why O.J. wasn' t convicted!

Nubbb

C903,

I don' t know what Pork you keep reffering to. It' s all there, spelled out clearly with no double talk if you re-read through the posts.

What I seem to hear from you is a lot of baloney....maybe that' s the pork that you are refering to.

Good Hunting and Check Six.