🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <61p4sa$kdm$1@linux.demon.co.uk>, John Phillips
<john@linux.demon.co.uk> writes
>Roger Barker <roger@peaksys.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <343f9c76.0@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>, Malcolm Muir
>> <malcolm@muir-et2.staff.demon.net> writes
>>> The jury is still out and the Motorola issues still being
>>> discussed and I am not suggesting the following is at all relevant,
>>> but to postulate an potential scene...
>>>
>> 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.

>In the archives I have many documented cases where handset A works with
>all base stations except B, with lay people blaming base station B and
>exonerating handset A.  However after careful investigation it turns
>out that base station B is within spec. and handset A is at fault, as 
>a result of a design problem precisely according to Malcolm's scenario.

What is lacking here seems to be the "careful investigation" which you
mention.

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