View Single Post
  #19  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:25 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I do not agree that is for sure. The headlines to these articles are
not even written by the examining editor. Did you know that? The
issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
title.

A final conclusion which rest their pick on a product being capable
seems to me to be their last conclusion. The only thing they gave
credit to the monroy for was it being cheap and the display, not
because it performed better. (Which was backwards in the article. In
direct sunlight you can't see the monroy display whatsoever, but the
Trafficscope is the most readable in direct sunlight. I think they
meant dim light.)

Clearly they state that the Trafficscope is a better choice for being
capable of detecting traffic range / altitude more accurately.

I think you should try flying with both. You'll see why the
Trafficscope is better in performance, just as Aviation Consumer did.



Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy.


You don't seem to understand at all. All I'm trying to aim for here is
a fair representation of the AvCon article. That, in my humble opinion,
was not given by your original post. In fact, the post directly
contradicted the "Monroy has the egde" summary that AvCon gives both in
the article and the lead-in.

Note that I have nowhere in my postings said that I think the Monroy is
better or anything like it. This is solely about the Avcon article.

Let's agree to disagree...