Julian wrote: > Actually in thinking about it, it is worse than that - they should > be open to consumer legal action. If they state an unqualified > figure for Dmax, then when measured by some "reasonable" process > it should meet that figure. With the likelihood that it will not, > this would mean that they are just plain lying, and therefore > should be open to action through consumer protection laws. By the same logic, Microsoft should have been out of business years ago. :) I vote for changing the old saw "Lies, damn lies and statistics" to read "Lies, damn lies, and advertising". :) Read some Dilbert sometime - advertising claims seldom match reality. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
- filmscanners: Magicscan and Umax Geoffrey McKell
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Julian Robinson
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 ... Tony Sleep
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Frank Paris
- filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Hersch Nitikman
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Mike Kersenbrock
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Bob Shomler
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 ... photoscientia
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Tony Sleep
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Julian Robinson
