Jump to content

CloggyDog

EMGS commissions Peco for RTR EM Gauge bullhead track/turnouts

Recommended Posts

I am surprised the EMGS has not replied, may be due to the change over of the trade sales person. Having said this I sent an email to the editor of the EMGS journal regarding confusion over an early GEM lever frame with supporting info, also never received a reply, perhaps not replying to emails is catching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I am surprised the EMGS has not replied, may be due to the change over of the trade sales person. Having said this I sent an email to the editor of the EMGS journal regarding confusion over an early GEM lever frame with supporting info, also never received a reply, perhaps not replying to emails is catching

 

Or perhaps the unpaid volunteers to who do the work were just busy doing other things and the e-mail slipped through the net...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Or perhaps the unpaid volunteers to who do the work were just busy doing other things and the e-mail slipped through the net...

 

Phil

 

I do not expect an instant reply, as you say the EMGS is run by volunteers.

 

Firstly though if the EMGS is supplying products it has a moral duty to reply to a customers query, let alone its legal duty under the sale of goods act

 

Secondly the journal survives on input from its members, when someone takes the trouble to confirm a subject, a few seconds just acknowledging the email (over the next week or so) is just being polite. Lets face it there are not that many subscribers to the journal !! Plus hardly encourages one to contribute

Edited by hayfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Secondly the journal survives on input from its members, when someone takes the trouble to confirm a subject, a few seconds just acknowledging the email (over the next week or so) is just being polite. Lets face it there are not that many subscribers to the journal !! Plus hardly encourages one to contribute 

 

The trouble is that as editor, you can quickly acquire a number of people all of whom want to discuss the topic that currently matters a lot to them - all at the same time. When in the role, there are plenty of people who will eat all your time if you let them. They think they are the only person doing it, but this is rarely the case.

 

I've been there as a volunteer and it only gets worse when you do it professionally! "Quick" phone calls that last over an hour several times a week, mile-long e-mails that have obviously taken hours to write and will demand just as long to respond to, only to generate yet another.

 

Cut them some slack. You may never have lot an e-mail in a well-stuffed in-box, but I know I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

 

As for replying to the information I supplied to the editor, I am not too bothered

 

What is concerning is the issue regarding the track, now granted I do not know the timescale involved plus the trade officer is changing as we correspond. It may well be that the EMGS is investigating the issue, if they are it seems they are not conveying it to the buyer. If there is an issue things do need to be done about it. I understand that a solution may take a while. But there is no excuse for not at least acknowledging the complaint confirming it is being investigated

 

Societies do have a responsibility to their members and products, a quick (not necessary instant) reply is the least that can be expected. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Penlan said:

..................... The EMGS has stated on it's Facebook page the track (not points) is now available, presumably by post, to Members.

Only at exhibitions, according to the website ...... I was thinking of picking some up at Wells - but, until the gauge issue has been resolved, perhaps not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The trouble is that as editor, you can quickly acquire a number of people all of whom want to discuss the topic that currently matters a lot to them - all at the same time. When in the role, there are plenty of people who will eat all your time if you let them. They think they are the only person doing it, but this is rarely the case.

 

I've been there as a volunteer and it only gets worse when you do it professionally! "Quick" phone calls that last over an hour several times a week, mile-long e-mails that have obviously taken hours to write and will demand just as long to respond to, only to generate yet another.

 

Cut them some slack. You may never have lot an e-mail in a well-stuffed in-box, but I know I have.

 

Happens a lot with sole traders too, not just volunteers!!

 

Mike.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Penlan said:

............... there seems to be problems with the gauge.  I advised the EMGS through a private message on their Facebook page of the problem(s) on 15th July, with a photo (as they requested) on the 17th July.  I became aware of the problem when testing for smooth running of some stock on a 52" radius curve, the Gibson EM wheels (B/B's at 16.5mm) where riding up on the rails.  Also when I came to lay a piece of track up to a point which had been checked at 18.2mm gauge, the Peco EM was narrower. ................

 

Gauge on 72 rad curve.jpg

Just a thought ! ( careful, now )... the rails ought to be inclined inwards - have PECO got the gauge correct at the foot by any chance ??!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Penlan said:

What is the head width of the rails ?  0.90mm, The head is the same as the toe, the rail profile is symmetrical.

Can you join the rails to C&L type BH code 75 rail with scale type fishplates

I've used Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, little bit loose on the Peco EM track?

I understand the chairs are 3 bolt. Correct ? Yes - see photo below.

The dimensions of the sleepers on plain track ( Width x Length x depth ) ?

3.45mm, 34.12mm and 1.67mm

What proportion of the height of the sleepers has the joining web attached to it ( or in reverse )how much ballast depth needs to be used to cover the web ?

The web is 1.18mm thick, other makes webs tend to be around 0.50mm thick.

Is the flexitrack being supplied with spare rail at the ends of the sleepered sections as I read above ?

YES, the RAIL length is 36", the TRACK length is three and a half 60' sleeper bases, which leaves you approx., 3" of rail left over - All the track I had has been laid now, ready for an exhibition, so I can't check the exact lengths etc.,
Be mindful the sleeper spacing is closer, not the 30" as per pre-grouping

Surely it can't be labelled as 'yard lengths' unless all of it is usable - I agree.

 

Whatever the answers to the above Peco/EMGS are to be given a slap on the back for bringing this out.
Not so sure, because once the track's been glued down with, say, PVA, there seems to be problems with the gauge.  I advised the EMGS through a private message on their Facebook page of the problem(s) on 15th July, with a photo (as they requested) on the 17th July.  I became aware of the problem when testing for smooth running of some stock on a 52" radius curve, the Gibson EM wheels (B/B's at 16.5mm) where riding up on the rails.  Also when I came to lay a piece of track up to a point which had been checked at 18.2mm gauge, the Peco EM was narrower. 
Hence my posting above on July 12th looking for somebody via a private message to contact me so we could compare notes.
The EMGS 'conversations' were courteous etc., but I've had no response from them since. 

The photo below (on a 72" radius curve) may stimulate a response here. Note: the web had been cut away to get a wider sleeper spacing, but similar vernier readings are obtained from straight track complete with webs.
The EMGS has stated on it's Facebook page the track (not points) is now available, presumably by post, to Members.
 

Gauge on 72 rad curve.jpg

 

Thank you, I hadn't intended stirring up trouble. Kind of you to take the trouble to check sizes for me.

 

Rob

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The trouble is that as editor, you can quickly acquire a number of people all of whom want to discuss the topic that currently matters a lot to them - all at the same time. When in the role, there are plenty of people who will eat all your time if you let them. They think they are the only person doing it, but this is rarely the case.

 

I've been there as a volunteer and it only gets worse when you do it professionally! "Quick" phone calls that last over an hour several times a week, mile-long e-mails that have obviously taken hours to write and will demand just as long to respond to, only to generate yet another.

 

Cut them some slack. You may never have lot an e-mail in a well-stuffed in-box, but I know I have.

 

 

Phil

 

I now have had a reply from the editor, for the accidental oversight.

 

I also missed this part of Penland's post, which I apologize. It is clearly stated that the EMGS were on the ball in initially dealing with it

 

"  The EMGS 'conversations' were courteous etc., but I've had no response from them since.  " 

 

Its understandable that resolving the issue will take some time and instant or quick action usually not an option

 

What would be of interest is to know when gauge widening should be applied and up to what radii can 18.2 mm gauge be safely used

Edited by hayfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hayfield said:

What would be of interest is to know when gauge widening should be applied and up to what radii can 18.2 mm gauge be safely used

 

Hi John,

 

That depends on which wheels are being used, at what back-to-back setting. And on what vehicle wheelbase.

 

For RTR wheels at 16.4mm back-to-back you would probably need some widening below about 750mm / 30" radius.

 

For EMGS/kit wheels at 16.6mm back-to-back you could probably go tighter. Some modellers using such wheels are now using the EM-SF standard at 18.0mm gauge, 0.8mm flangeway, for which 18.2mm is already gauge-widened for use on sharp curves.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please also bear in mind the EMGS Board do have other considerations (some also have 'day jobs').

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MartinWales said:

Please also bear in mind the EMGS Board do have other considerations (some also have 'day jobs').

 

I would guess they are waiting for a response from the technical folk at Peco. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I'm a new member on here and have been reading this thread with interest as I purchased a box of the EM gauge flexi track at the Spring expo in Bracknell, (I was lucky as it was the last box!) I was playing about with it in the shed and for some unknown reason I decided to place an EM roller gauge across the running rails but it would not easily slot onto the rail heads and I had to use a little force to do so (This was on a straight piece) and it seemed like the rails had to spread a tiny amount for the gauge to fit..... I thought it's probably just me and inexperience of just how tight the fit should be but then I found this thread and now I'm wondering if there may be an issue?........ Interesting, I shall wait and see what happens, thank you! 

 

Jim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been no mention of gauge issues from official EM Soc. channels as far as I can see - but your findings confirm comments above ......... yes, we'll have to see what happens when the points hit the market ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jeepy said:

Hello, I'm a new member on here and have been reading this thread with interest as I purchased a box of the EM gauge flexi track at the Spring expo in Bracknell, (I was lucky as it was the last box!) I was playing about with it in the shed and for some unknown reason I decided to place an EM roller gauge across the running rails but it would not easily slot onto the rail heads and I had to use a little force to do so (This was on a straight piece) and it seemed like the rails had to spread a tiny amount for the gauge to fit..... I thought it's probably just me and inexperience of just how tight the fit should be but then I found this thread and now I'm wondering if there may be an issue?........ Interesting, I shall wait and see what happens, thank you! 

 

Jim. 

 

 

Jim

 

It was reported earlier in this thread

 

  On 31/07/2019 at 02:17, Penlan said:

............... there seems to be problems with the gauge.  I advised the EMGS through a private message on their Facebook page of the problem(s) on 15th July, with a photo (as they requested) on the 17th July.  I became aware of the problem when testing for smooth running of some stock on a 52" radius curve, the Gibson EM wheels (B/B's at 16.5mm) where riding up on the rails.  Also when I came to lay a piece of track up to a point which had been checked at 18.2mm gauge, the Peco EM was narrower. ................

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_07/416310270_Gaugeon72radcurve.jpg.b2d4efbbead6939983ec8652c399997e.jpg414.25 kB · 0 downloads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

 

I'm sorry if this repy upsets a few, well to be honest I'm not and it may also result in in me getting banned of here but its time to reply. I'm getting realy F$%^d off by peoples attitude towards the track. If your that unhappy with it then please fund your own and lets see how you get on. A couple of people who have commented have a vested intrest in what I can only see as an attempt to rubbish the product but more on that later.

 

So as for the track and the main question.

 

THERE IS NO ISSUE!!!!!!!!!

 

The track is with the tolrances set out by us and Peco. several diffrent locos, 30 plus wagons have been run up and down a few lenghts and they all run well and there dont get stuck or hit any tight spots along the lenght

 

So I supose I had better reply to each of the comments that have been posted,

 

First up yes the socitey recived a message for Sandy (Penlan) on the facebook page to which I replied. After the message came through I had 5 catrons of track that had been delivered. Each carton had 5 boxs of track with 22 lenghts in it.

this meant I had the following selection of track to check

 

22 lenghts x 5 boxes = 110 lenghts per carton

110 lenghts x 5 catrons = 550 lenghts.

 

With me so far??, so I selected a random box from each carton = 5 boxes and then selected a random lenght from each box. This as im sure you will agree, would proivde the most random selection of track i could check. So using the roller gauges I had and a set of Vernier calipers (more on these too later) and a EM mint gauge I set about testing the track. I found that all the lenghts where in the tolances set out.

 

I then contcated Peco who then tested a smaple of track they had recently made and found it too match the ones i had.

 

I then conveyed this to Sandy who then informed me that he had cut the webbing away between the sleepers as he models pre-grouping and the spacing was wrong for his chosen era.

I then finshed the converation saying that the track is aimed at those modellers who want to try EM but don't know how to build track not sesoned EM modellers.

That is where the converstion stopped as i didnt feel that the converstion could have carried on, what else could be said.

 

So next thing i know is when im on holiday i get a notication on this thread that sandy has posted up about the track and that it is under gauge. So you can imagine my suprise and you can also imagine my language that followed. I chose not to reply then as the reply would have just been a blank one after the profanity filter had removed all the words i would have typed.

 

I have still been angry about it since as a few people who mentioned it at expoEM Autumn to me, sorry if you got both barrels.

 

It was mentioend that the socitey has a duty under the sales of goods act, yes it dose but like eveything else if you have modifyed the track then that technically voids the warranty. I mean, would you buy a Bachmann engine for example start changing it then send it back to them asying its not working??? no I didnt thinks so, so why would you expect the socitey to do the same???????

 

So on to the Verniers, heres a question for you all, when you close the jaws that measure the outside of items to zero them, talking about digital ones. You just press the button on the front and its done, Yes??

So how do you zero the internal ones???? as far as im aware you can't (stand to be corrected if im wrong) and you assume that they are at Zero but it doesn't take much have a slight bend or nick in the end to alter the measurement surface.

 

Looking forward to hearing how you all set the interal jaws to zero.

 

There was a theroy that we had that due to the finescale nature of the track that the pressure from cutting the webing with the track upside down may have distirde the hold of the rail in the chairs. I did try it on a small section of track and it did alter it but not by as much as we thought.

 

 

  So on to gauges, yes you would assume (again) that the gauges that you buy would be correct for EM but this may not be the case. I have a brass EM roller gauge that I bought from a repuatable track compnay and during the testing of the lenghts above I found that it wouldn't sit down on the EM track or C&L track gain showing the track was tight. I thought that it might be a bit of track that may have been distorted, so I placed it on my EM layout to check and its was out there. Intresting so i got the calipers out and checked the measurments and found it to be out by 0.2 mm. So it might be worth checking any gauges that you buy to see if they are correct.

 

The points have been checked using gauges that have been checked against the EM track standards and any tight spots mentioned to the Techical team at Peco to resolve.

 

The two Pre-production ones that where at Railwells back in August where checked by others as well and connected to a bit section of plain track and then a wagon roller through them and the wagons ran fine and everyone who saw them was inpressed.

 

  To be honest at this point I'm not sure what else to write on the matter, other than to add that I am now no longer the trade officer of the EM Society and if you have any grevances with what has been wrritten above then please direct them at me and not the socitey as the words above are my own and no one elses.

 

Thanks

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.S.Corn78

 

Thank you for answering the query from 2 posters re the new EM gauge society flexi track. I am an EM gauge member and in the process of building my first EM gauge layout. I have discounted the older traditional methods of track building as I can get far more accurate detail with turnouts and crossings by using the range of chairs for turnout and crossings supplied by Exactoscale (which the society supply) I also discounted using thin plastic timbers and flexitrack owing to well known potential issues of gauge narrowing, I have used 1.6 mm thick plastic timbers for the first crossover I have built and therefore require a compatible ready to lay plain track product.

 

The new EM gauge track was/is of interest to me, now I both read and contribute to threads on this site and receive my copies of the Societies news letter. Penland posted a reply of his experience with the new track and unless I am either mistaken or missed a reply I cannot recall seeing any reply. Now there is a second posting regarding a similar issue with the gauge.

 

Firstly can I thank you for taking the time to reply, the first query seems to have been caused by someone removing the webbing (which is not uncommon with some modellers) So it is good to know that if the webbing is kept the gauge is maintained ( this is the first time the query has been answered in print), thank you for confirming there is not a problem. Secondly you have kindly informed us  you have  raised the issue with the manufacturer. who has confirmed that the track was and still is within the gauge, A simple statement is all that was needed

 

From today thanks to your reply I now know I have a choice of 2 plain track options, the Society's offering and Exactoscale's Fastrack bases. 

 

The variable quality of track gauges has been known by seasoned track builders for some time, also gauges which work for soldered track may not be suitable for chaired track and vice a versa (due to chaired track needing the gauge to allow the head of the rail to rotate slightly, allowing for the cant of the rail in the chair). Perhaps something all societies should include with their track building notes, especially those who support both types of track building methods, and ensure their products support both methods

 

Again thank you for a full official reply on the products being supplied by the Society, I am certain many will appreciate it

 

On a quite separate not, those who remove the webbing (I am not one of them) between sleepers, beware whatever track system you use !!!

Edited by hayfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

 

That has now confirmed to me that the track is as it should be, being a beginner as far as EM is concerned I just wanted to be sure, I haven't tried running any stock on it yet because I haven't got any, but i'm in the process of building a wagon kit which will be to EM gauge so should be ok.

Just waiting patiently for the turnouts to become available...….

 

Thank you,

 

Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.S.corn78 said:

So on to the Verniers, heres a question for you all, when you close the jaws that measure the outside of items to zero them, talking about digital ones. You just press the button on the front and its done, Yes??

So how do you zero the internal ones???? as far as im aware you can't (stand to be corrected if im wrong) and you assume that they are at Zero but it doesn't take much have a slight bend or nick in the end to alter the measurement surface.

 

Looking forward to hearing how you all set the internal jaws to zero.

 

Never use the internal jaws on a caliper if you can avoid it. Certainly not on low-cost ones. Use only the outer jaws and/or the depth gauge on the end if possible.

 

To measure track gauge using a caliper:

 

1. clean the face of the external jaws.

 

2. close them fully and if a digital caliper zero the readout.

 

3. measure across the outside of the rails, ensuring that you measure only the rail head. For plastic-based track do not apply any pressure to the rails -- lock the jaws and check that they are a close but easy fit without causing any distortion.

 

4. measure the width of the rail head. Multiply it by 2 and subtract it from the outside dimension measured above.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, you beat me to it, I would have said exactly the same......

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jeepy said:

Hello, 

 

That has now confirmed to me that the track is as it should be, being a beginner as far as EM is concerned I just wanted to be sure, I haven't tried running any stock on it yet because I haven't got any, but i'm in the process of building a wagon kit which will be to EM gauge so should be ok.

Just waiting patiently for the turnouts to become available...….

 

Thank you,

 

Jim.

 

 

Jim

 

Don't be put off. If you have a query then it is best aired. Plus we all have been informed as to the best use of callipers. Its a way that we all learn. 

 

Plus its a good step forward in getting a previous issue answered

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Jim

 

Don't be put off. If you have a query then it is best aired. Plus we all have been informed as to the best use of callipers. Its a way that we all learn. 

 

Plus its a good step forward in getting a previous issue answered

Thank you! 

I'm not put off at all, it's nice to know now that all is OK, being a member of the EM gauge Society I would have got in touch with them and asked the same thing but earlier in the thread I got the impression that had already been done so was just waiting for further comment or confirmation one way or the other..... Looking forward to getting on with something now! 

 

Best wishes 

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/10/2019 at 10:56, Mr.S.corn78 said:

Good morning all,

 

I'm sorry if this repy upsets a few, well to be honest I'm not and it may also result in in me getting banned of here but its time to reply. I'm getting realy F$%^d off by peoples attitude towards the track. If your that unhappy with it then please fund your own and lets see how you get on. A couple of people who have commented have a vested intrest in what I can only see as an attempt to rubbish the product but more on that later.

 

So as for the track and the main question.

 

THERE IS NO ISSUE!!!!!!!!!

 

The track is with the tolrances set out by us and Peco. several diffrent locos, 30 plus wagons have been run up and down a few lenghts and they all run well and there dont get stuck or hit any tight spots along the lenght

 

So I supose I had better reply to each of the comments that have been posted,

 

First up yes the socitey recived a message for Sandy (Penlan) on the facebook page to which I replied. After the message came through I had 5 catrons of track that had been delivered. Each carton had 5 boxs of track with 22 lenghts in it.

this meant I had the following selection of track to check

 

22 lenghts x 5 boxes = 110 lenghts per carton

110 lenghts x 5 catrons = 550 lenghts.

 

With me so far??, so I selected a random box from each carton = 5 boxes and then selected a random lenght from each box. This as im sure you will agree, would proivde the most random selection of track i could check. So using the roller gauges I had and a set of Vernier calipers (more on these too later) and a EM mint gauge I set about testing the track. I found that all the lenghts where in the tolances set out.

 

I then contcated Peco who then tested a smaple of track they had recently made and found it too match the ones i had.

 

I then conveyed this to Sandy who then informed me that he had cut the webbing away between the sleepers as he models pre-grouping and the spacing was wrong for his chosen era.

I then finshed the converation saying that the track is aimed at those modellers who want to try EM but don't know how to build track not sesoned EM modellers.

That is where the converstion stopped as i didnt feel that the converstion could have carried on, what else could be said.

 

So next thing i know is when im on holiday i get a notication on this thread that sandy has posted up about the track and that it is under gauge. So you can imagine my suprise and you can also imagine my language that followed. I chose not to reply then as the reply would have just been a blank one after the profanity filter had removed all the words i would have typed.

 

I have still been angry about it since as a few people who mentioned it at expoEM Autumn to me, sorry if you got both barrels.

 

It was mentioend that the socitey has a duty under the sales of goods act, yes it dose but like eveything else if you have modifyed the track then that technically voids the warranty. I mean, would you buy a Bachmann engine for example start changing it then send it back to them asying its not working??? no I didnt thinks so, so why would you expect the socitey to do the same???????

 

So on to the Verniers, heres a question for you all, when you close the jaws that measure the outside of items to zero them, talking about digital ones. You just press the button on the front and its done, Yes??

So how do you zero the internal ones???? as far as im aware you can't (stand to be corrected if im wrong) and you assume that they are at Zero but it doesn't take much have a slight bend or nick in the end to alter the measurement surface.

 

Looking forward to hearing how you all set the interal jaws to zero.

 

There was a theroy that we had that due to the finescale nature of the track that the pressure from cutting the webing with the track upside down may have distirde the hold of the rail in the chairs. I did try it on a small section of track and it did alter it but not by as much as we thought.

 

 

  So on to gauges, yes you would assume (again) that the gauges that you buy would be correct for EM but this may not be the case. I have a brass EM roller gauge that I bought from a repuatable track compnay and during the testing of the lenghts above I found that it wouldn't sit down on the EM track or C&L track gain showing the track was tight. I thought that it might be a bit of track that may have been distorted, so I placed it on my EM layout to check and its was out there. Intresting so i got the calipers out and checked the measurments and found it to be out by 0.2 mm. So it might be worth checking any gauges that you buy to see if they are correct.

 

The points have been checked using gauges that have been checked against the EM track standards and any tight spots mentioned to the Techical team at Peco to resolve.

 

The two Pre-production ones that where at Railwells back in August where checked by others as well and connected to a bit section of plain track and then a wagon roller through them and the wagons ran fine and everyone who saw them was inpressed.

 

  To be honest at this point I'm not sure what else to write on the matter, other than to add that I am now no longer the trade officer of the EM Society and if you have any grevances with what has been wrritten above then please direct them at me and not the socitey as the words above are my own and no one elses.

 

Thanks

I don't think a spell checker  would go amiss here.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, blueeighties said:

I don't think a spell checker  would go amiss here.

 

Absolutely. And a sweeping edit to remove all the anger would help too.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.