Re: Powder lot number?
Can we get everyone back into thier proper corner...
My personal observations:
1) Things seem different in print and there's also the spectator vs participant view of the issue.
2) I don't believe CatShooter or GoodGrouper began specifically at odds with one another, more a lively debate (even with the goodhearted jabs included). I do believe the topic may/could be headed away from goodhearted pokes and I'd rather it didn't.
3) In the several years I've personally observed directly or indirectly the results of directly questioning factory reps, subject matter experts (SMA), points-of-contact (POC) and even Mum and Dad I've sort of come to the belief that:
a) Many of these folks are easily lead (by design or inadvertantly) to a desired conclusion.
b) Some will tell us what we want to hear from their assessment of the situation and conversation. They don't want to excalate the conversation or in some cases are just drawing a pay check and want to end the conversation quickly.
c) Unless a company rep, POC, SMA or other authority figure will give an answer in writing they often deny any knowledge of previous discussions on the matter ( see item "b)").
d) Some reps, doctors, whomever that deal with a lot of folks in the course of a day don't remember those previous discussions or to whom they spoke... (That's why we need info in writing, to remind them we exist(ed)).
e) Phone conversations or other non-documented two party verbal discussions are valuable as "hear-say" only.
These are some of my beliefs and filters with which I process info.
SO... Let's continue but the "I called" and "I called" and so-and-so said amount to little for verification of whether an event occurred or not. We'd need to get a larger sample then seek a mean, throwing out any "leading the witness", inattentive rep, etc, etc.