It was postulated without grounds that it was farther off than the Arnold model and then measured to be closer.
Or did I read it wrong?
If we're still talking about my posting and not someone else's, then yes I think you read into it way more than what I wrote. I did not comment on the accuracy of the Arnold model or how the Bachmann unit compared to it.
Dave, I know the pendulum is swinging hard in both directions now as everyone tries to make their case. But aren't you assuming that we are postulating without grounds? I'm not going to assume what Jason has or hasn't measured or compared, because I don't know. Even if it is just his eye on photos, I trust his sense of proportion. Some of us have a keen sense of proportion, and I've measured what I've measured on top of that. Some of us are better at art, some science, some weather, whatever. But we're going to get mad at one another based on more assumptions about motives? I can't remember the last Bachmann product that was reviewed here on Railwire, maybe the 44-tonner? That one is so wide that everyone can recognize it... is that the problem here that the S4 isn't off by as much? People assumed that if we call it wide that it has to be as bad as the 44-tonner? It's not. It's more like the difference between a Kato hood and the prototype.
But we didn't even get to that conversation because Jason and others have been beaten down so far already. He answered someone elses question, maybe with not as many words as you would have liked. But who wants to use more words when the conversation turns into "HAHA YOU'RE WRONG ONE PERSON MEASURED IT AND ITS CLOSE ENOUGH AND NO ONE ELSE CARES HAHAHAHA"
The bias seems to be a couple people waiting for a Mike or a Jason or a Robb to screw up and then light off some fireworks in celebration. I'd rather talk about the trains, they're inanimate and shouldn't have their feelings hurt if I don't like them.
