🚀 go-pugleaf

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:pJ6dnZJkkbEcPKbbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill Again wrote:
>> "=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
>> news:463b66c0$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Does your "interview" cover why in their testing they don't test with 
>>> real world conditions, like varying humidity, heat and cold fluxuations, 
>>> airborne polutants, dirt and other airborne substances? All of why by 
>>> the way plays an important part in the life of anything you place on 
>>> your walls?
>>>
>>> This is why there testings is worth dog poo. Until they add in 
>>> invironmental factors like those found in average peoples homes their 
>>> tests will alway be a joke. They also need to spend less time trying to 
>>> duplicate museum like environments and more in duplicating the 
>>> evironments of the people that will be buying most of these printers, 
>>> papers and inks and that is the average consumer.
>>>
>>> =(8)
>>
>> Well that's pretty negative. As it happens I disagree with most of what 
>> you say. Although these"tests" are not real world stuff they are 
>> nevertheless an indication of how the ink/paper will, or might, react 
>> overtime. This is better than no idea at all.
>>
>> So thanks Wayne.
>
> My thanks, also; plan to read this week.
>
> "=(8)" sure knows a lot, but won't say who he is. Not impressive.
>
> -- 
> John McWilliams

Oh gosh John, someone on a newsgroup not giving their full name and address, 
I do however agree with Bill but will say that a little more of the 
variables could have been added to show the affect, of course all long term 
testing is still only an indication of what might happen.