[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Mp22f.397649$5N3.60872@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09 Oct
2005 06:04:28 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>In <di9siv$fel$1@blue.rahul.net> on Sun, 9 Oct 2005 01:42:55 +0000 (UTC),
>dold@XReXXNetge.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As I wrote. Notwithstanding a great deal of testing and documentation. So do
>>> you have anything substantive to add (e.g., evidence one way or the other), or
>>> (with apologies to Peggy Lee) is that all there is? ;)
>>
>>I just wonder why your commentary is substantial, and other sources are
>>considered anecdotal.
>
>I think that's obvious, but then again, YMMV. ;)

My apologies for being snippy -- I was tired and cranky when I wrote that.
Better answer: I think if you look at the kind of report that's typically
posted, and the level of expertise (or lack of it) reflected in the post,
against the kind of careful testing and documentation that I performed under
fairly well controlled conditions, then you'll see the difference.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>