BHelman,


We went through this before.

Indeed. Your post is stunning, with that background.

First, the "quote": The full sentence is:

"If that capability is important to you or you can’t run on ship’s power alone,
the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view."

That's a pretty important first part, as even you might want to admit.
But instead, you're using the Surecheck tactics. Is that a misquote? In my book,
it damn well is. What does that have to do with any legal action?

The article states elsewhe "We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300."
In your words: What's there to misinterpret?



You are wanting to agree (to profit from the Monroy sales correct?)
with berto who WRITES for AvCon, who will always favor Monroy, and who
most likely wrote that "sidebar" / headline, not the editor who
actually did the review and said the above quote. There are 2
different editors, with 2 different agendas I think after talking with
the company.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but first, you have no idea what I want
to agree with. AvCon has no meaning where I sell the Monroy. As for the writer/
editor thing: The writer of the article himself answered your posts here on the
newsgroup. What is there to misinterpret?


It seems that this series of "sidebars" is the only "positive" public
ackowledgement or endorsement that the Monroy has going, and it is
shaky and limited at best.

As I said, reality distortion at its best.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)