Why does everyone always attack John?

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:q7GdnStchJ1D_sfYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:a2iil2p81032v9h0hosukd5fidbeq6tdpc@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:37:03 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
>> <4559480e$0$34559$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The key words there are "non-LOS". In such cases, differences vary
>>>> considerably from location to location, and no frequency generalization
>>>> is truly valid; i.e., there are cases where 1900 will work better than
>>>> 850 and vice versa. As in some many other things, it all depends.
>>>
>>>Yes, different environmental models are used to approximate the median
>>>characteristics. And on average, when a large number of measurements are
>>>taken, higher frequencies will incur greater attenuation.
>>>
>>>In typical environments here really is a significant, statistical and
>>>practical difference between the two bands.
>>
>> The empirical studies I've seen are anything but conclusive.
>>
>
> Seen where? On Google? How many have you personally conducted?
> Personally written papers on? What professional experience do you have to
> back up your claims? What degree do you hold that gives you an
> educational
> backround in this arena?
>
> John Navas- the Usenet equivalent of a parrot. Capable of repeating
> anything without comprehending a word that he says.