Thierry --

We didn't contact Proxalert when we started the article because we had never
heard of you. Your website did not turn up in the search engine, no
distributors mentioned you, and we never saw any ads. When we finally did
find your website there was no phone number listed. There was a distributor
listed on the site (Eastern Avionics, the only distributor in the US) and we
called them immediately. In fact, since we were in southern Florida at the
time, we planned to fly down to Eastern Avionics in Punta Gorda, borrow a
unit for the day, and include it in the article.

I spoke to Eastern personally. At first they didn't even know what I was
talking about. Finally they rummaged around in their database and found you.
But not only did they not have any units in stock, they also didn't have a
phone number for you!

So please, don't imply that all your contact information was in place and we
simply didn't do our homework.

Jonathan Spencer
Aviation Consumer


"Thierry" wrote in message
m...
We (proxalert) contacted Aviation consumer on mid february to offer to
send a Proxalert R5 for evaluation. They came back 2 weeks after
saying it's too late as they were unable to buy a device from a
distributor. Our contact info are available since November 2003 but
they never contacted us.

If you don't see a follow up very soon on the R5 the conclusion will
be evident ...


(Loran) wrote in message
. com...
You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
guys from the monro company.

I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
editors are.




(BHelman) wrote in message
. com...
Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
the Trafficscope.

My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.

Like they said, you get what you pay for.


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
BHelman,

Did you know that? The
issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add
to a
title.


I'm a journalist...

In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article,
saying
"We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ,
it
should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the
one
and only passage directly comparing the units.

It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that
vein,
even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.