XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android, alt.cellular   
   XPost: comp.sys.mac.system   
   From: arlenholder@nospam.net   
      
   On 31 Aug 2018 19:18:39 GMT, sms wrote:   
      
   > Of course the maps are not old! You are well aware that nospam is a   
   > pathological liar so why you would give anything he writes any attention   
   > is a mystery. Filter him out like the rest of us do and get a life.   
      
   I agree that nospam guesses where his guesses are more often wrong than   
   right, which is really strange because intelligent adults just don't do   
   that.   
      
   Intelligent adults *care about their credibility*.   
      
   Mine is stellar, for example, where if I'm guessing, I *say* I'm guessing,   
   and when I speak facts, unless they're already known world wide, I provide   
   a reference to my facts.   
      
   Just like I did in this thread where I reported my own cellular signal   
   strength scores on T-Mobile on my balcony and where I reported *how* I   
   obtained those scores, and even where the inaccuracies may lie.   
      
   It's what *adults* do (as do scientists).   
   Anyone can reproduce my facts for themselves.   
      
   With nospam, I agree, the only one whos uphold his "facts" are himself,   
   Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK@OnRamp, Alan Baker, Tim Streater, etc.   
      
   > As I stated, those four maps are a mere eight days old. I gathered them   
   > from each of the carrier's web sites for a post I made on Howard Forums   
   > about T-Mobile coverage.   
      
   What fair enough is that I looked at that same area (centered on Loma Mar,   
   California), where I would conclude that Verizon is the way to go, but on   
   the rest of the carriers my conclusion would be different from yours - but   
   - I certainly realize everything depends on the exact places we look at as   
   it's splotchy for all of them in different ways.   
      
   > You complain about people like nospam lying so much, and you're correct,   
   > but you can be just as guilty of it. Consider following my lead and   
   > posting only referenced facts.   
      
   Whoa. Where did I not post facts?   
   I only post facts. And you know that.   
   I care about my credibility, as I am sure you do.   
      
   SO I'm fine with you defending the date on your maps, but you didn't say at   
   first where those maps came from and nospam said they were old (which, you   
   say is a lie, and if I ever have to weigh him against an intelligent adult,   
   the adult will always win).   
      
   However, please don't accuse me of lying because I didn't lie.   
   Notice my words in the post that you're responding to used the word "if".   
      
   You can check yourself that I only speak facts.   
   I said: "if it's true that his coverage maps are old."   
      
   The "if" means that I know that everything nospam guesses at has to be   
   checked. It's enough that you confirmed the results, because your   
   credibility is valid - as is mine.   
      
   So two things I want to be clear in with you:   
   1. I speak facts - and the fact is that I said "if" your maps are old.   
   2. I agree that nospam makes things up without any proof so that's why I   
   said "if" ...   
      
   It doesn't matter anyway since my own tests on the latest T-Mobile site   
   confirms some of your observations (at least for "LTE" in Loma Mar it   
   does). T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint all suck in Loma Mar. Verizon isn't   
   fantastic, but it's clearly better than the rest (with T-Mobile in second   
   place).   
      
   You don't have to take my word for it though as I provided *all* the links   
   necessary to *exactly* reproduce what I was seeing.   
      
   One important question for you is whether "LTE" coverage is a valid test?   
   Is it?   
      
   > And by the way, if the maps WERE old, a decade or so old, T-Mobile would   
   > look better not worse because they've dropped so much of the AT&T   
   > coverage that you see on the AT&T map. Paradoxically, they've had a   
   > tower in Pescadero for a very long time, even before AT&T covered that   
   > area. Apple used to have an EMI test facility just north of Pescadero on   
   > Stage Road but I think they sold it. Used to ride my bike past it often.   
      
   I already agreed with you, at least for LTE coverage centered on Loma Mar   
   (at least for Verizon).   
      
   My question for you is whether "LTE" coverage is a valid test.   
   Is it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)