Difference between revisions of "Talk:Combustion cannon"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hey, where's that trouble shooting guide? | Hey, where's that trouble shooting guide? | ||
| − | + | 9 March 2008 | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
I've removed Bigbob's edit: | I've removed Bigbob's edit: | ||
| − | |||
''"bigbob edit, above it says they are the simplest to build this is not true. Pnuematics are much easier to build and oprerate."'' | ''"bigbob edit, above it says they are the simplest to build this is not true. Pnuematics are much easier to build and oprerate."'' | ||
Since the preceeding sentence, and the page itself, is concerned with combustion guns the reference to pneumatics is not relevant. A basic combustion is indeed the simplest '''combustion gun''' to build. | Since the preceeding sentence, and the page itself, is concerned with combustion guns the reference to pneumatics is not relevant. A basic combustion is indeed the simplest '''combustion gun''' to build. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A paragraph saying that a pneumatic may be a easier to build than a combustion may be appropriate, but that I believe the statment is debatable. | ||
Revision as of 18:48, 9 March 2008
Hey, where's that trouble shooting guide?
9 March 2008
I've removed Bigbob's edit: "bigbob edit, above it says they are the simplest to build this is not true. Pnuematics are much easier to build and oprerate."
Since the preceeding sentence, and the page itself, is concerned with combustion guns the reference to pneumatics is not relevant. A basic combustion is indeed the simplest combustion gun to build.
A paragraph saying that a pneumatic may be a easier to build than a combustion may be appropriate, but that I believe the statment is debatable.
