"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:18:32 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:26:49 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:45 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since that is the requirement, I guess that leaves out the CSPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. CSPI is well-known for being a crock. Sometimes
>>>>> they're right. Other times they just like to blow smoke. That's
>>>>> what brings in their funding, after all.
>>>>
>>>> Well known to whom?
>>>
>>> <yawn> There's that signature "bait" somebody was mentioning.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> It's a fair question. Some of what CSPI puts in its newsletter is
>> nitpicking, like when they tell readers that regular ice cream has too
>> much
>> fat in it. But, their articles are accurate and well documented.
>>
>> So, I suspect "crock" is well known only to you.
>
> OK, then. Since you haven't seen for yourself:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=CSPI&qt_s=Search+Groups>
>
> 7 of the first 10 articles posted to Usenet on the first page of
> Google hits are mocking CSPI (the other 3 are just quoting
> articles mentioning CSPI).
>
> *That's* who thinks they're crocks. I'm sure you can dig out
> another few thousand posters who think they're idiots, too.
>
> -sw

Thank you. Time to make dinner. I'll look at this with an open mind later or
tomorrow, or whenever the onslaught of teenagers subsides.