🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <876776659.0023970.0@office.demon.net>, clive@demon.net writes
>In article <aEd1PbAkhJQ0EwbT@peaksys.demon.co.uk>,
>Roger Barker  <roger@peaksys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Malcolm, is there a factual basis to these "1000 somethings", or is it
>>>> yet another excuse based on myth rather than technical fact? 
>>> The scenario Malcolm puts forward is a frequent cause of mis-operation
>>> in my own professional experience and is certainly not just hypothetical.
>> Of course it's hypothetical! It remains hypothetical until he or someone
>> else says what parameter(s) are causing the problem. At the moment the
>> technical content of the discussion is non-existant.
>
>The issue is a real one, and the scenario is, as is stated, one that often
>appears. It is being presented by Malcolm and I as a plausible explanation
>of why Demon are not necessarily at fault. That is all.

Sorry Clive, but the "1000 somethings" explanation is completely
hypothetical, as is any other theory, until Demon produce some sort of
factual technical explanation as to what is going wrong. If you disagree
with that, then you are redefining a hypothesis!

However, if you want to play hypotheses, can I try one out on you?

Demon "investigates" the problem a little longer. Demon concludes that the
3400 is incompatible with the TNTs and will always give the problems which
people are currently suffering. As you are aware, thousands of those modems
have been sold in the UK, and they certainly cannot be classed as obsolete.
When new users come along to open accounts with Demon, will you say to them
"Have you got a Motorola 3400 modem? If you have, then you should be aware
that it will not perform satisfactorily with our terminals." ?

-- 
Roger Barker      roger@peaksys.demon.co.uk
Boston, UK        "Be tolerant of everything, except for intolerance!"