Objective professional reviews?

[ben721364]

I was not implying anything with or by my response to the admonition that I "man up" other than that the slang and possibly vulgar (there are multiple definitions) term reflects poorly on the 'moderator.'

I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.

BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us?

I think I laid out what I am looking for in the opening (#1) post of this thread, ...objective comparisons without the hint of commercial prejudices.

And I think I laid out the answer pretty well in my last post.

You are looking for something that does not exist.

We're seven pages into this thing now. If there were something more, you would have heard it by now.

I got a good chuckle from the admonition that I "...man up...", for obvious reasons. Am I now banned?

If you are implying that you are female, then yes, you are banned.

[Stealth Stalker]

I was not implying anything with or by my response to the admonition that I "man up" other than that the slang and possibly vulgar (there are multiple definitions) term reflects poorly on the 'moderator.'

Well, I do lead a pretty sheltered life, so it is certainly possible that there is a vulgar interpretation of the phrase that I am unaware of. If so, I humbly apologise for that misinterpretation. It was not my intention to be vulgar, only to make it clear that there is no one source that will give you everything you need to have the choice made for you. You ultimately are responsible for the choice you make.

I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.

No worries. I understand. It's just that the one thing that ruffles feathers here quicker than any other is to ask a question, and then ignore the answers, only to keep asking the same question over and over.

BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us?

In the same sense that traffic laws apply to cops.

[ben721364]

I accept your apology. I accept responsibility for my actions and do not feel entitled to anything that I do not earn, unlike some folks. Likewise, I understand that there are frequently multiple sources for information on a variety of subjects. A reading of post #1 in this thread should remove any lingering doubt about this. I even included an example to illustrate what I was looking for.

I was trying to find a reason to buy one of the products marketed by the sponsor but found nothing here to convince me to do so. I did come to conclude that products not actively marketed by the sponsor get short shrift, ...or worse.

I was not implying anything with or by my response to the admonition that I "man up" other than that the slang and possibly vulgar (there are multiple definitions) term reflects poorly on the 'moderator.'

Well, I do lead a pretty sheltered life, so it is certainly possible that there is a vulgar interpretation of the phrase that I am unaware of. If so, I humbly apologise for that misinterpretation. It was not my intention to be vulgar, only to make it clear that there is no one source that will give you everything you need to have the choice made for you. You ultimately are responsible for the choice you make.

I apologize for my part in this exchange but not for defending myself. I was seeking information and evidently ruffled feathers. It was unintentional.

No worries. I understand. It's just that the one thing that ruffles feathers here quicker than any other is to ask a question, and then ignore the answers, only to keep asking the same question over and over.

BTW, I have a question. Do the 'sponsor's rules #5 and 7 apply to moderators as they do to the rest of us?

In the same sense that traffic laws apply to cops.

[Stealth Stalker]

I was trying to find a reason to buy one of the products marketed by the sponsor but found nothing here to convince me to do so. I did come to conclude that products not actively marketed by the sponsor get short shrift, ...or worse.

Can you tell us what product you are talking about without violating Rule #1? And, by "sponsor", are you talking about the forum sponsor or GOL's sponsor?

[tshrimp]

Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.

Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?

Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.

My Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.

Ya, I am amazed at how well they work for under $99. I'm surprised I don't see them being used by law enforcement with low/no budgets.

From what I see those guns are K Band????

If so has there been QT testing on Ka Band, and how does each detector do against it (I ask because in my area we are K, Ka, and Laser)?

[CJR238]

From what I see those guns are K Band????

If so has there been QT testing on Ka Band, and how does each detector do against it (I ask because in my area we are K, Ka, and Laser)?

Yes they are K band.

Me and a few fellow enthusiasts did some extensive KA QT testing with the more difficult KA 35.5 and some of the top RD's.
[ame="http://escortradarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1560"]Radar Detector Reaction Time Test - Escort Radar Forum[/ame]


& this video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oVjMpc6yY[/ame]
-