BGonline.org Forums

32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Wednesday, 21 March 2012, at 10:23 p.m.

In Response To: 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction (Taper_Mike)

Good catch. I inadvertently omitted an asterisk from the fourth 32Z-41 nacbrac, though I (correctly) used 46**7 (not 46*7) to figure the aggregate.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 32Z-41? RO 46K XG4
  Claude Landry -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 11:59 a.m.
  • 32Z-41? RO 46K XG4
    David Rockwell -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 12:47 p.m.
  • Here's my 52S 41 to compare (just finished it)
    neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 4:46 p.m.
    • 32S-62 started
      neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 6:20 p.m.
      • 32S-62 started
        Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:49 p.m.
        • 32S-62 started..yes S included for at least 5k
          neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:53 p.m.
          • 32S-62 started..yes S included for at least 5k
            Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 8:18 p.m.
        • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
          Taper_Mike -- Wednesday, 21 March 2012, at 9:47 p.m.
          • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
            Nack Ballard -- Thursday, 22 March 2012, at 2:22 a.m.
            • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
              Taper_Mike -- Thursday, 22 March 2012, at 3:48 a.m.
    • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data
      Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:12 p.m.
      • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction
        Taper_Mike -- Saturday, 10 March 2012, at 5:28 a.m.
        • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction
          Nack Ballard -- Wednesday, 21 March 2012, at 10:23 p.m.