X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 928169 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:56:41 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.204; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.2a5.3e092d0 (4426) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:55:49 -0500 (EST) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: <2a5.3e092d0.30fc9d75@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:55:49 EST Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Pinning the spacer blocks To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1137394549" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5044 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1137394549 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/2006 1:54:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, billdube@killacycle.com writes: I figured, no harm in pinning the spacer blocks and it doesn't take much of an effort. Why not do it? Attached is a picture. Good idea Bill. Bill Jepson -------------------------------1137394549 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 1/15/2006 1:54:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, billdube= @killacycle.com writes:
I figured, no harm in pinning the spacer block= s and it doesn't take much of
an effort. Why not do it?

  &n= bsp; Attached is a picture.
Good idea Bill.
Bill Jepson
-------------------------------1137394549--