Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2354644, member: 1892&quot;]The evidence you point to is evidence <b>in favor</b> of it being a lamination, not a cud. By definition, one should expect a cud to be sharpest at the rim. On the other hand, laminations - not uncommon with early Wheats - will often have layers of lamination - not one single monolithic piece - and you&#039;ll see &quot;sub-laminations&quot; as your arrows point to. And for the displacement to be so notable on the field, we should expect a similar level (or at least close)</p><p><br /></p><p>If I may be frank, I feel from the character of your posting that you&#039;re taking offense at differing opinion where maybe none should be felt. As a values judgement (kinda silly as such), there&#039;s no &quot;qualitative&quot; difference between a cud and a lamination. </p><p><br /></p><p>On the Internet, we must all be thick-skinned. There are far greater regional and generational differences in form of expression and &quot;acceptable&quot; language than we realize (not even factoring those posting for whom English is a second language), and we really can&#039;t use our own frame of reference to evaluate the hearts and intent of others. I was raised a Vermont woodchuck in the 1960&#039;s, and now live in a rather hard-edged Philadelphia neighborhood half a century later, and every day I hear language on the streets which would have been fightin&#039; words in my previous days. And so it is on the Internet.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yeah, there are those posting here who just want to get a rise out of you, but not all the words you read which strike you that way are meant that way.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in