"Is that a misquote? In my book, it damn well is"

Only in your and paul's twisted opinion. You share a small minority
opinion. Everyone else in the industry seems to be passing up the
monroy because it just doesn't perform "as advertised" as well as the
trafficscope.

Your "book" is twisted by your desire for profiting off the Monroy,
and thus it holds little credibility.

Ask around, and you will learn the truth about your products function.
I called just 4 dealers who carry both, and found that they are
getting multiple returns on the Monroy because it gives "False Alerts"
Call the top avionics dealers and get the facts, don't just spew your
propaganda.

I have been flying since 1971 and have seen a lot of companies come
and go. Sometimes it is because of our hairy GA economy, and
sometimes it because the product is just plain worthless. A collision
avoidance device for $700 that just bounces from 1 mile to 4 miles
with random altitude has no place in the GA cockpit.

Listen, I have flown with both units. The monroy bounces all over the
place. How do you explain this when the trafficscope does not??

Anyone who takes collision avoidance seriously should just go out and
fly with both in a "trial period" and see just how they actually stack
up. I did, and I couldn't believe that anyone with realistic
knowledge would ever choose this atd, just as Mr. Spencer says. The
pilots I have spoken to, echo the same response.




Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
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.