Are you suggesting that I'm the only one in this forum who questions the rationale behind Eagles Pdx's posts relative to this topic of ski compatibility?
Are you suggesting that the so-called 'chairman' answered ANY of our fellow blogger's good questions since the beginning-third of this thread ... until well after Eagles Pdx made a major issue out of a non-issue, especially after the event that took place a few days ago with the bindings?
Are you suggesting that Eagles Pdx did not draw-away the attention of just about everyone in this thread from that event of a few days ago?
Do you think Kastle or Stockli will not have alliances with a certain binding?
Do you think that when someone intentionally interferes with another person's life's work, his key-assets, his professional reputation, and puts that person at enhanced risk for injured-skier-claims — that one should just sit-back after 5-years and let it happen?
If you think this is my imagination — why don't you take a look at the public file within the Vermont court system — and test bindings.
I'm confident you'll then see what's been ( and is ) going on.
It is my belief that the difficulty the public has in reviewing that file within the Vermont court-system and difficulty the general public must incur to perform Real tests to bias the special feature is what's being gambled in order to continue this situation.
(( Also, HardDaysNight, when you write, "... what on earth ...?" do you mean, kind-of-like "What on earth are you waiting for?" ))
Lastly, the whole 're-positioning' thing about me being purely a 'technical guy' is outrageous. We'll see what the court has to say in the end about the re-positioning game, too.
Edited by Richard Howell - 3/6/13 at 11:48am