Hi Bob,
Thank you for your email. I think I owe everyone an explanation as it appears I've been mis-construed, but clearly at my own hand. I did own the gun and it was paid for. The essence I was attempting to portray in my first post was in the form of a request for input into the rifle in general ie: right, wrong, indifferent. My description was one that was purely visual.....it was in lovely condition visually but that wasn't meant to be a comment on whether it was right or wrong. It was just the way it appeared, but knowing how these things can be very tricky I had hoped for some critical input into the rifle if it warranted it. Clearly, in hind site, I wasn't clear in asking that. For that I am sorry. My enthusiasm can sometimes run by itself. It was only in reviewing my Dillon that it all came clear to me re: the conversion.
My babble re: the name stamp was intended to be purely an intellectual one, putting forth any and all thoughts as to what or how this was, looking for some knowledgeable feedback which Scott kindly provided with much patience. I tried almost always to finish my comments with a plea to ignorance and a deference to those who know.
My very poor comment re: the cheerleaders certainly touched some nerves for which I apologize. In an ill-conceived but very coarse way, I was trying to say that all input into the conversation (not just complimentary ones, thus the bad cheerleader comment) was important. I didn't mean it to be a derogatory thing but it clearly came out that way. It was more pointed toward the comments that weren't shared, other than in personal emails, which did me no good whatsoever. But clearly it all comes down to my failure to be clear and obviously open about what I was asking for and what the intent of the thread was.
Anyway, I'm very sorry this all went pear-shaped and I offer my sincerest apologies for offending anyone on this thread. I will now bow out.
kind regards,
Tony
