On 8/20/2012 6:26 AM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in news:k0t5ot$a4k$1
@speranza.aioe.org:


_WHAT_ spec's does it meet? That's the problem--they don't provide
any.

Haven't you read the responses here? Are you selectively blocking some
users?
....

Yes, and yes... (but not the ones in this thread; I hadn't seen them
all at the time of posting)

I _did_ look -- the ones I saw widely promoted did _NOT_ have any
indication of meeting ANSI Std's on any link I saw.

I did finally follow one other path that did show one that did--so
perhaps either there's a rendering difference between browsers or there
are different products or somesuch but I had been unable to find the
indication of performance spec's other than the 90-day warranty stuff
which by itself is meaningless.

But, I still don't trust HF unequivocally to ensure their products meet
the spec's they print. (And, yes, I _AM_ selective that way... )

I do trust the "name-brand" guys to be more careful--maybe it's an
ill-placed trust I don't know but that's me and w/ my eyes I'm willing
to pay's the extra money for perhaps nothing but that feeling. Thing
is, I don't have the way to verify it a priori. So except by bad
results if the low-priced spread doesn't match up and that's not made up
by money back or a lower cost going in...

--