Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blaine Fields" data-source="post: 17597" data-attributes="member: 183"><p><BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Ok, let me type really slow for you… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>( I am speaking slowly again), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p>Ah, yes, an intelligent response. Generally, condescension equals inablility to deal with facts. In this case I asked a series of questions that should reflect the overall dependibility of the USO product. Instead, you ignored those questions and simple restated your collection of stories. </p><p></p><p>Let's see: You tested 5 scopes in 1999 and all five had broken elevation turrets. Wow. What an indictment. What was the problem? You don't say. Has it been fixed? You don't say. Were the scopes returned and fixed? You don't say. Are you claiming that this problem is to be expected from current scopes? If not, what is your point?</p><p></p><p>Somebody else dropped a prototype scope and it broke. Incredible. So is your point that prototypes break? That only friends of USO get prototypes? That there is a grand conspiracy at work here? What exactly is your point? Are you upset that you weren't asked to test the scope? Is this whole deal a personal matter between you and USO?</p><p></p><p>Flat spots. Obviously a problem for the user. But what is the source of the problem? Is is a design problem, a material problem or manufacturing problem? You don't say because you probably don't know. Other than the fact that a scope exhibited this behavior, what does it say in general about the product? Well, nothing if you don't know what the source of the problem is. Has USO remedied the problem? Again, you don't say.</p><p></p><p>If you're satisfied by a product evaluation that consists of collected stories, well then my advice to you is that you shouldn't buy a USO scope. On the other hand, if you are trying to draw some general conclusions about the quality of the product, then your analysis is juvenile and lacks any semblance of critical thought.</p><p></p><p>But hey, don't let me interrupt your bash - you're on a roll. (By the way, let me know if you ever want to bash either S&B or Kahles because I've got some negative stories to tell.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blaine Fields, post: 17597, member: 183"] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Ok, let me type really slow for you… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>( I am speaking slowly again), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, yes, an intelligent response. Generally, condescension equals inablility to deal with facts. In this case I asked a series of questions that should reflect the overall dependibility of the USO product. Instead, you ignored those questions and simple restated your collection of stories. Let's see: You tested 5 scopes in 1999 and all five had broken elevation turrets. Wow. What an indictment. What was the problem? You don't say. Has it been fixed? You don't say. Were the scopes returned and fixed? You don't say. Are you claiming that this problem is to be expected from current scopes? If not, what is your point? Somebody else dropped a prototype scope and it broke. Incredible. So is your point that prototypes break? That only friends of USO get prototypes? That there is a grand conspiracy at work here? What exactly is your point? Are you upset that you weren't asked to test the scope? Is this whole deal a personal matter between you and USO? Flat spots. Obviously a problem for the user. But what is the source of the problem? Is is a design problem, a material problem or manufacturing problem? You don't say because you probably don't know. Other than the fact that a scope exhibited this behavior, what does it say in general about the product? Well, nothing if you don't know what the source of the problem is. Has USO remedied the problem? Again, you don't say. If you're satisfied by a product evaluation that consists of collected stories, well then my advice to you is that you shouldn't buy a USO scope. On the other hand, if you are trying to draw some general conclusions about the quality of the product, then your analysis is juvenile and lacks any semblance of critical thought. But hey, don't let me interrupt your bash - you're on a roll. (By the way, let me know if you ever want to bash either S&B or Kahles because I've got some negative stories to tell.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
Top