[ICOM] PRO III QST review

[John Geiger]

But doesn't advertising that the PROIII has a 3IP of
+30db indicate that something was wrong with the
PROII, because its intercept wasn't that high.  In the
PRO II ads they seem to imply that the sensitivity in
the original PRO wasn't as good as it should have been
.

73s John NE0P
Still using an Icom 756AMATEUR

--- "Michael P. Olbrisch" <mike2004 at elp.rr.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> > [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of
> JohnD
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:49 PM
> > To: ICOM Reflector; ic756 at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III QST review
> >
> >
> > and it was
> > a bit of a surprise to find that ICOM never
> > mentions this fact anywhere in its advertising."
> 
> Of course not.  To do so would be to admit that the
> PRO-II had a flaw to
> begin with.  In this sue-happy world, some jerk
> would try to force them to
> fix it, and there-by be by default responsible for
> fixing ALL PRO-IIs ever
> sold.
> 
> Same in the gun industry.  Don't go after criminals,
> instead blame the guns.
> BAD GUNS !!!
> 
> If that (gun law) ever passes, I am going to use
> that legal president to sue
> FORD because the idiot that rear-ended me with no
> insurance and took my jeep
> out for months was driving a FORD.  Ford should have
> known better and
> designed a car that would not run without proper
> insurance.
> 
> The flaw in the PRO-II never existed, so how COULD
> the PRO-III have a fix
> applied?  Simple logic in our simple world!
> 
> Mike.  KD9KC
> El Paso, TX.
> 
> Where it is RAINING today!!!
> 
> 
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC,
> icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> Win a new Icom IC-756 PRO III and help QSL/QTH.net
> Details at: http://mailman.qth.net/
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com