To: | Gonaj@aol.com, jello@ida.net, ValveCurtain@aol.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: The ideal advance curve (too long |
From: | Barney Gaylord <barneymg@ntsource.com> |
Date: | Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:11:07 -0600 |
At 09:48 AM 1/29/2001 EST, Gonaj@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 1/29/01 12:51:09 AM Central Standard Time, >barneymg@ntsource.com writes: > ><< It also splits the electrical load between two sets of points, so they may > last a little longer. >> > >Hey Barney; > I'm pretty sure that you know better than thet if you take a moment to >rethink what you wrote. > >George Oh? Did you read the rest of the same paragraph? Perhaps you could enlighten us with another opinion? Barney |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: Ideal Advance Curve, Larry Hoy |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: paint?, Dan DiBiase |
Previous by Thread: | Re: The ideal advance curve (too long, Gonaj |
Next by Thread: | Re: The ideal advance curve (too long, Bullwinkle |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |