03-19-2009, 01:02 AM
Sean wrote:
>Right. Although he does note that the resulting hull wasn't necessarily better, which was >our main point of disagreement.
From my point of view, the interesting point is that the resulting hull isn't neccessarily worse... My key concern was your assertion that the shell-first method produced a superior product, which is clearly not neccessarily the case.
Thanks,
Cole
>Right. Although he does note that the resulting hull wasn't necessarily better, which was >our main point of disagreement.
From my point of view, the interesting point is that the resulting hull isn't neccessarily worse... My key concern was your assertion that the shell-first method produced a superior product, which is clearly not neccessarily the case.
Thanks,
Cole
Cole
