Paul, at 07:35 on May 03 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

PE> Just like the Netcomm lockup works just fine.

BG> Who cares, I don't have a NetComm.

PE> :-)  But it's still a user-error right, just like the other TWELVE
PE> problems I have documented.  

If you say so.  Certainly not all of those problems you detailed with the
USR were modem problems, but I can't speak for NetComm as I don't own one. 
Nor am I likely to at any time during the next 100 years.

PE> BTW, yesterday I sent a message to Netcomm complaining that I wanted a 
PE> refund, because the modem was clearly unsuitable and they haven't fixed a 
PE> single one of my problems. 

And what was their response to that?  Complete silence, I presume.

PE> I will delay refunding until I have seen how the Spirit Viper performs over 
PE> a month, and then I'll tell Netcomm to get knotted one way or the other.  
PE> It makes me sick to think that I may end up with another Spirit.

Dunno, the Viper was certainly better than the NetComm, even if its test
period was somewhat limited.  Pity you didn't play your cards right, then
you might have scored a freebie Courier from Russ.  :)

BG> To ONE Supra ONLY, Rod's.  He never saw it with anybody else.

PE> So?  Doesn't make the problem magically disappear.  BFN.  Paul.

BG> No, what it DOES mean is that there really isn't a problem at all.

PE> We've already been through the ostrich routine, but it is amusing
PE> to watch reruns.

Funny, no late model Supra has exhibited that problem, only Rod's 6-year
old V.32bis model (which was never released here anyway).  Would you be
selling off your Viper if say ONE old Maestro 2400-ZXR had problems
connecting?  And who would you be blaming for it?  I already have a pretty
fair idea...

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20