Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
JR,
I do not see you as really looking for the best material to train officials, if that was the case you would be talking more than what IAABO does compared to the NF. As a matter of fact you would not even be talking about the NF at all.
As stated before your assertion of what is the best or better is very subjective. After all we are talking about a book or manual.
|
I realize that whatever is best or better is subjective. Unfortunately, I've also never stated in this thread which way of teaching mechanics is better or best. That's because I don't know. All I said was that the FED has a goal of having a country-wide set of standard mechanics. Apparently, IAABO has the same goal. Also apparently, the mechanics taught by both the FED and IAABO are also the same. At no time did I ever get into who I thought taught those country-wide mechanics mechanics better--IAABO or the FED. That would be you.
I'm simply trying to find out
your subjective reasons for saying that IAABO generally teaches mechanics better than the FED. After that, I can try to make up my own mind. It's kinda tough to make a decision when you don't have any of the necessary data available. It then becomes a pure guess.
How can I talk about what IAABO does when I'm trying to find out what IAABO does? I don't have a clue what IAABO does. You're the one that must know what IAABO does because you stated that they did a much better job of teaching mechanics than the NF does. I simply asked you how and why IAABO was doing a better teaching job. What exactly is IAABO doing that is better? I'm still waiting for an answer. It's kinda tough for me to agree or disagree with you when you don't give any reasons out for your conclusion.
Soooooo......what exactly
does IAABO do better then the NF when it comes to teaching mechanics?
