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.  

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

And all the problems anyone has ever complained about with the
Netcomm, are all user-errors too, right?  Ostriches are here
to stay!

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. 

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

He said he would see if he could get that done.  I've since sent him
a message asking if a couple of weeks delay was OK.

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

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

And what fair idea would that be?  Sorry, Bill, you have no idea.
If he has problems connecting to the Viper, I would say:

1. I don't know who is violating protocol, the modem companies need
to do a trace and find out.

2. Both modems should have code changed in them to cope with the
other.  One should have their code fixed because it is buggy.  The
other should have their code CHANGED because it can't cope with a
real-world modem.

BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---