A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 24th 04, 09:39 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #22  
Old March 24th 04, 07:21 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #23  
Old March 31st 04, 09:01 AM
Loran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #25  
Old April 1st 04, 08:51 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Loran,

I actually know John Spencer


Well, maybe you do. But maybe you're a dog. On the internet, who knows.

The guy's name is Jon, not John.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #26  
Old April 2nd 04, 02:03 AM
Loran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually his name is Jonathan.

I don't get the dog part????


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
Loran,

I actually know John Spencer


Well, maybe you do. But maybe you're a dog. On the internet, who knows.

The guy's name is Jon, not John.

  #27  
Old April 2nd 04, 10:00 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Loran,

I don't get the dog part????


It's an old cartoon from the early days of the web, with two dogs
sitting in front of a computer and one saying to the other "On the
internet, no one knows if you're a dog"

As for the original subject: Paul tells a different story. I'm waiting
for Jon's reply, but somehow I don't think it will support your
posting.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #28  
Old April 2nd 04, 01:12 PM
Thierry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #29  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:08 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Loran,

Jon got back to me. He says he doesn't know you, doesn't know a Loran
and doesn't use it, either. You didn't really think you could get away
with that, did you? Does Surecheck really need that kind of
"advertising"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #30  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:08 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thierry,

the conclusion will
be evident ...


The first conclusion we can safely draw here is that Loran lied. So
let's not jump to any other, shall we?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.