[ICOM] PRO III QST review

[Mike Mellinger WA0SXV]

Hate to rain on your rant but the Feb 2002 review of the Pro II quite
clearly shows the shortened dots at 60wpm.  It was reported.  And I believe
that it was also reported in the PRO I review.

Mike WA0SXV


-----Original Message-----
From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Michael P. Olbrisch
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:58
To: 'ICOM Reflector'
Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III QST review



> -----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!