On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:00:03 GMT, spamfilter0@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us
(John Navas) put finger to keyboard and composed:

Go to the search page (http://modemfaq.home.att.net/search.htm), plug
in "conexant" and this is what you find:

"Site search found NO matches for conexant".

This begs the question, how is it that someone who claims to have
tested thousands of modems is completely unaware of the existence of
the world's largest modem chipset manufacturer?

BTW, there are also no matches for Agere or Ambient or Smartlink or
Ess.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <tp3hjvsdo12fa667gta6vb1m6m55hdi31p@4ax.com> on Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:11:44
+1000, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

Do you really think that's true? Or are you just annoyed over my UART
rebuttal? (Or simply jealous?

Might as well toss in V.92 while you're at it. ;-) My FAQ is obviously in
need of update, although the great majority of the substance is just as valid
as the day it was written, and the waning interest in dial-up modems makes
further effort hard to justify.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
28800-56K Modem FAQ: <http://ModemFAQ.home.att.net/>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:29:17 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

No, of course not. The sarcasm should have been obvious. I was merely
attempting to draw attention to the serious state of neglect of your
FAQ, as I have done on at least five other recent occasions. The
absence of Conexant was an apt example, especially since Rockwell had
spun off this entity almost five years ago. That's a long time without
maintenance.

The words "nope" and "nope" do not constitute a rebuttal. A rebuttal
must consist of reasoned argument.

Not in the slightest. Your FAQ was a magnificent work some five years
ago, and it still is, although it no longer qualifies as the defacto
FAQ for c.d.m, as you would have us believe. Among other things, 90%
of the offsite links are broken, brand specific information is limited
to USR and Rockwell, and software FAQs are limited to Win3.1x and
Win95/98. In fact the only modem resource on the Net that could
truthfully claim to be the definitive reference for c.d.m is Richard
Gamberg's modemsite.com. It is comprehensive, is regularly updated,
and incorporates a great deal of user feedback. Therefore I find your
disdain for Richard's work quite puzzling. Or is it professional
jealousy, perhaps? ;-)

I thought of that later. ;-)

That's a shame because a lot has happened in the last five years.

Anyway, I find it strange that you have not updated your modem
recommendations (ie Navas' Best of the BestTM!) during the same
period, yet on July 19, 2003 you updated the following page:

Instructions for use of trademarks:
http://navasgrp.home.att.net/bestbest.htm

This begs the question, why bother updating the instructions for the
use of a logo, which is of dubious worth, when the only products that
are qualified to use it are five year old modems? ;-)

Something else I found amusing was your invitation to receive a copy
of your FAQ from http://www.wwwfetch.com/. If I click on this URL I am
redirected to http://www.petbynet.com/finder/, which is a "Pet
Finder". :-)


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <gol2kvc7tlebu9nh10gvkkf0f5s6f6ugc7@4ax.com> on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:51:32
+1000, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

Feel free to make your own contribution. Or do you just take potshots at
those that do>

My rebuttal has long since been posted. Since I'm not going to waste time
repeating it, "nope" will just have to do.

Very little, actually.

Because I feel like it.

Broken links are the bane of the Web.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
28800-56K Modem FAQ: <http://ModemFAQ.home.att.net/>