We shouldn't pick on ol Michael too much. A lot of these writers are assigned a topic for an article on some magazine and it might be in an area in which they have no experience. So they might do some research and quote something of someone who was wrong. I think it was in this book that ol Michael gave some disparaging remarks of the LC Smith. Michael also said in another place that the pre-1913 LC's used all imported wood. I replied to him that was true if he considered Pennsylvania American black walnut "imported" wood. Michael said he had read that in an LC pamphlett. Good grief, these were the days of Caveat Emptor. Anyone attending a gun show could see that at least half of the pre-1913 LC used American walnut. But this is simply the problem that arises when you write something on a topic in which you are uninformed. I told Michael he needed to get out more. But this just shows that it is only too easy to use someone elses written words to continue an error which might be some considered the truth eventually. Comments like that on a site like this with all kinds of informed individuals usually gets jumped upon immediately.
The other type of article is the opinion article which is exemplified by this book. It is reminiscent of ol Ed Murdelak's article in the Double Gun Journal on how the Parker is better than sex. Now Michael knows much more about guns than ol Ed who wrote an article so ripe with untruths and errors that it could only be considered comedy. In talking to Ed, it became obvious he wasn't really a gun afficianado rather than a one dimentional Parker enthusiast. He had never even heard of Lindner.
Most posts here are heavily opinion oriented. That is the nature of the beast. Frankly, there are lots of guns out there with which I could call my favorite IF they fit me. The right Parker, LC, Fox, or Lefever or Colt could be my next love. Of course, not a BUNID or BU-21. We have top draw the line SOMEWHERE.
Last edited by Pete; 09/06/07 11:47 AM.
