RS> I've binned all this shit, if you have such a gross surfeit of dog shit
RS> between the ears that you cant grasp what can be deduced from less than
RS> the use of a datascope in that particular config, your problem, not mine.

PE> You're the one who brought it up again Rod, completely unprovoked.

Bullshit it was, you were doing the SAME thing, mindlessly binning
useful evidence which was all that was available and proclaiming that
there was just one valid way to consider the issue being considered,
using some silly idea about the only valid way to test possibilitys.

Soorree, the real world aint like that Paul, at times you have
to use the evidence thats less than ideal, coz its all you've
fucking got. And whatever you proclaim, its quite feasible to
get useful information from the less than ideal evidence.

That is possible right now on the question of the quality of your line.
We have the Courier/Courier stats when your line was called by Russ from
FNQ from that immaculate line. We have the comparison with the data on
the other calls he made to a Courier, and can deduce some useful information
on the state of your line compared with say the state of Bills line.

You can also check the Courier/Courier stats by making sure they do correlate
with CPS figures so there cant be anything do drastic wrong with them.

You can proclaim that the one valid way to measure lines is to hire
test equipment and use it on the lines being looked at if you like,
pity the real world is that that that AINT the only way. Tho it would
certainly be nice to do that if the cost wasnt a consideration.

I've binned the rest of your massive brain fart on 0100, pathetic.
@EOT:

---