Mr.Mcknowitall

Ah, I see the reason for the comment. I thought it may be another issue, like GDP year over year, or wage projections, etc.

I don't see how a person can polish the Rings and keep them shiny and colorful, unless the Holders are opened and Ring maintenance is performed.

Could you expand on this subject? The rest of your comments I think I grasp the basics. Doing the math, it seems the best a person could do now (without matching 401K) is 4% or so, unless a Pro involved in hands-on investment on a day to day basis and buying and/or selling multiple stocks that can return 4-20% in a short period.....a week or 2?......and then re-investing. Is that more or less the issue? As usual, I always find your posts on the subject interesting, and learn something, and the posts do not contain a lookatme aspect. That is refreshing.

Fair enough. I simply don't subscribe to Scarlet Letter approaches toward people, especially when the person has apologized, clearly recognized his/her transgressions and has taken the robust criticism from members and stated it is deserved, and will try to be a better member and participant and earn trust back. Bringing it up over and over and over, for instance the same member doing so in a span of 5 days, for something that happened quite a while ago, serves no purpose, as far as I am concerned. Sure, a position could be taken that the transgressions of the member did not continue because of members continuing to call attention to the past bad acting. I get that. To do so in a thread that is not the basis of the past "sins" of the member, and the post by the transgressor is not remotely suggesting in a any manner that the chicanery" is continuing, is, to me, simply spiteful, especially when the person doing so states he was not involved or dealt with the "sinner", just around when it happened. The stated reason....to notify new members that may not be aware, is silly. The new members can check the thread dealing with same, or in the alternative, can pm the new member with a BTW message. The members can voice their opinions in any manner that they want to. I have done so. Whether my opinion is "popular" with other members or not, does not dictate opinions. If members feel it is important to bring up the transgressions whenever the "sinning" members post, that is their Right, as it is mine to disagree. No harm, no foul.

Never mind.

The rEal problem is you did not read my many posts on the subject and understood any of the issues I stated, and now you somehow think I am comparing a comic Holder Construct with a Note Construct, as to layers. No. You have not understood at all. Again, though, it is not important.

No Rings. No Rings. No Rings. Material in contact. Material in Contact. Not a problem at all. Clear inert material.....no problem at all. Why not? What is your position on why not, and what is your position as to the solution being use the same inert material on the inner and outer parts of the Holder. Why not? Does this clarify any better for you?

You don't understand, what I am sharing, so no problem.

The inner/outer aspect is not the issue. Direct contact is supposedly the issue, that causes the problem, no? Yes, you are confused, and I don't think you understand, or have not understood any of my comments. It doesn't really matter, though, because we are talking 2 different things. You believe the materials have to be separated, because the materials come in contact with each other and cause Rings. So, why not use the inert product that the sister organization uses? Or do you think that would also cause Rings. I don't think you understood, but again, no harm no foul. I do not think, nor has it been proved, that the Holders presently being used are of a quality of material that would not have the Ring problem if the pieces were separated. Why? Why should that be? You believe and others do, that it is a light phenomonen the human eye detects when the materials touch. I am sure our Host is working on it. So, it is of no value to repeat everything I have already posted and could post about polymers, copolymers, extrusion, contamination, heat extruded sheet materials, etc. It is boring, I am sure.

Yes.

The more diverse opinions, the better. If the sister company in the same entity does not have any Newton Ring issues with the Holder, and it is direct contact of the Note between the front and back layers of the inert material, then it would seem there is a simple solution for what to use, that eliminates the explanation of contact of materials as the problem, no?

Can we have a re-phrase, please? Not that I am judging........

Theme off to an outstanding start!

No. Extruded 240 Again, it is not present with the PMG Holders, which started bring used around March 2016. It is a high quality inert material. This was the 3rd re-design (The first design was a bit flimsy and easily scratched and that was replaced by the bluish/greenish heat extruded sheet material). Prior to that, the Holders did not have the....what you call "effect".....Rings, and the reason the Holders were changed was as I stated in my earlier post, a slight bluish/greenish tint. I would ask that you read all my posts carefully. I don't know that you understand they are sister organizations in the same business entity. If you do, I would think you would have some further questions.

I discussed that in an earlier post.

Unfortunately, Mr. Vintage, I think you may have misinterpreted my Post, and it will help if you go back and read again. Better would be for you to actually look and hold and feel one of the holders I am referring to. Of course it is the material. Of course it is specific. Whether or not the materials touch each other is of no consequence. It is the product itself. While your explanation has been stated in many different ways by many members, it is an explanation that is left wanting. But it does not really matter,

So am I. I like his humor delivery very much. I want him around for a while.

Love those guys..... had them both in my High School Class.....

I know....the Host can't do for much longer, before customer becomes and the result is to the customer wishes.

Absolutely agree, and more so when a sister Entity of the Host does not have the problem with Holders whose inert material is in full contact, without any Rings.

Yes, they were.

Sometimes, privacy causes a business to shoot itself in the foot...