🚀 go-pugleaf

George wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 10:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in
>> <2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message<nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3@4ax.com>  John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>  was claimed to have wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in
>>>> <1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>>>> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message<3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59@4ax.com>  John Navas
>>>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>  was claimed to have wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in
>>>>>> <4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kaye wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the 
>>>>>>>> antennas are
>>>>>>>> unsightly.  Especially in a city such as SF where people are 
>>>>>>>> proud of the
>>>>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of 
>>>>>>>> buildings makes
>>>>>>>> them really really ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop
>>>>>>> antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the 
>>>>>>> equipment
>>>>>>> (not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They 
>>>>>>> refused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) 
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before
>>>>>>> neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the 
>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>> of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal 
>>>>> and
>>>>> a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures
>>>>> equally?
>>>>
>>>> Read the cited references.
>>>
>>> You didn't cite any...
>>
>> I did.  Do keep up.  Otherwise, "Google is your friend".
>>
> I believe you declared "it is a myth"...


Would that Navas was in fact a myth...