John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:39:28 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45cfd361$0$27239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpkvvf0khd4qkg4m0715@4ax.com>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>>> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>>>
>>> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.
>> Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
>> to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
>>
>> I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
>> AMPS coverage...
>
> Except they don't exist according to Verizon.
>
>> There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
>> margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
>> their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
>> provided out of the urban core.
>
> No evidence at all of that.
>
>> It was huge sample size, and the results
>> are indisputable.
>
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>

Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?

It *does* taste burnt!

--
Notan