In Reply to: Re UL approval posted by unclestu on June 25, 2014 at 15:19:46:
Nice post. Totally misinformed and inaccurate, but the effort is appreciated.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Re UL approval - Basslines 16:15:42 06/25/14 (15)
- RE: Re UL approval - TRUFI 06:29:42 06/26/14 (10)
- RE: Re UL approval - unclestu 15:19:50 06/26/14 (9)
- RE: Re UL approval - PingPing 16:44:50 06/26/14 (8)
- RE: Re UL approval - unclestu 18:25:57 06/26/14 (7)
- RE: Re UL approval - Crazy Dave 10:14:04 06/27/14 (6)
- RE: Re UL approval - PingPing 19:08:58 06/27/14 (4)
- RE: teflon - unclestu 08:36:27 06/28/14 (3)
- RE: teflon - Crazy Dave 15:08:28 06/30/14 (0)
- RE: teflon - jad 10:22:20 06/28/14 (1)
- please READ - unclestu 16:42:38 06/28/14 (0)
- do you - unclestu 12:50:54 06/27/14 (0)
- correction invited - unclestu 18:19:12 06/25/14 (3)
- RE: correction - Cpk 06:00:30 06/27/14 (2)
- Isn't that essentially - unclestu 13:51:47 06/27/14 (1)
- Yes, if you meant by the statement - Cpk 17:01:56 06/27/14 (0)