Why does everyone dive for the scientific evidence box when they can’t substantiate what they themselves are stating?
I have already made clear to the members and visitor readers that the use of luminous components in tackle manufacture is simply “industry standard”, without which punters when in a tackle store would tend toward the products adorned with added glow than those without.
I hope this pic uploads correctly which will give you an idea of where some of these ideas stem from, and it could actually be referred to as “scientific evidence”.
Blatant statements like the obvious one above, replied to by myself and another member (who is also connected to the tackle trade) are damaging and misguided and simply shouldn’t be written.
If you feel I cut him down severely, I make no apology, he is taking on not just myself in that comment but every retailer, wholesaler and manufacturer in NZ and worldwide and that needed to be addressed.
Now back to that scientific request….