Steven's Myth of Verizon AMPS coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area
John Navas
better coverage than Cingular in the San Francisco Bay Area by virtue of
AMPS (which will likely be going away in a year in any event).
For the facts, see Verizon coverage maps at
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST>
Plug in ZIP 95070 for the hills near his home where he claims to only
get AMPS service, and we find (a) no AMPS-only areas and (b) huge areas
of no coverage.
The only noticeable places where Verizon shows AMPS-only coverage are a
few small areas in West Marin County -- plug in ZIP 94950 to see them.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
SMS
> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpk...@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>
>
> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.
Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
AMPS coverage, not even including San Benito County. My wife's company
just dumped 200 Nextel accounts and went to Verizon with the V325i, and
one of the reasons was the AMPS coverage (the other was Verizon's GPS
system, which is more accurate than the TDOA system that the U.S. GSM
carriers use, and they needed the increased accuracy (though I don't
like the reason they need it!)).
There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
provided out of the urban core. It was huge sample size, and the results
are indisputable. However I would concede that the socio-economic
make-up of Consumer Reports readers make it more likely that they would
travel to areas outside the urban core. Their readers tend to be higher
income, more highly educated, and more liberal, all of which contributes
to more travel into non-urban areas than lower income, less educated,
and more conservative users. This would translate to higher
dissatisfaction with the carriers that don't provide coverage in these
areas.
John Navas
wrote in <45cfd361$0$27239$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <pt4vs2leubcod0vpk...@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Scharf (aka SMS) repeatedly claims (trolls)
>>
>> And John Navas never trolls, does he.
>>
>> Nice editorializing, there. Nice high road you've taken.
>
>Oh jeez, what did he say now? I kill-filed him to resist the temptation
>to reply, but you don't have to snip everything he wrote!
>
>I could easily list 20 places in the SF Bay Area where there is only
>AMPS coverage...
Except they don't exist according to Verizon.
>There's a reason why Verizon beat the other carries by a significant
>margin in the latest Consumer Reports survey. Part of it was due to
>their better digital network, but part was due to the AMPS coverage
>provided out of the urban core.
No evidence at all of that.
>It was huge sample size, and the results
>are indisputable.
On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
<http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >It was huge sample size, and the results
> >are indisputable.
>
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
don't you wish you hadn't made a fool of yourself again by posting
this?
Notan
Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
It *does* taste burnt!
--
Notan
SMS
> It *does* taste burnt!
Definitely does taste burnt. I don't go there except when there's
nothing else around. I haven't tried McDonald's coffee in years, it used
to be horrid.
To Starbucks, their regular coffee is not their main business, it's the
espresso drinks, and the sickly sweet cold drinks. I think the reason
for the burnt taste is that it's often old by the time they serve it.
I prefer Peet's Coffee, or my own brewed coffee. Peet's is very
conscientious about not serving coffee that's old. They'll brew it fresh
for you. Once they apologized for me having to wait, and gave me the
coffee free. The coffee from the locally owned coffee place at our
library is also excellent. Our city council meetings have free coffee
from the local place. Free wireless, free coffee, and free entertainment
from the bozos on the city council. It's better than the movies.
SMS
LOL, I think a lot of us often wonder why he intentionally makes a fool
out of himself. Lack of self-respect is the best guess.
Todd Allcock
> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
> of a non-representative universe.
> And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
"Favorite coffee" is subjective. "Is my phone able to dial out at this
location?" isn't.
Besides, despite the fact that kajillions of folks like Starbucks, IMHO,
as a coffee drinker far longer than there ever was a Starbucks, Starbucks
coffee doesn't taste like coffee- it tastes like, well, "Starbucks."
There's nothing wrong with that if you like it, of course.
For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
"cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
(including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!
Steven J. Sobol
> Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
> It *does* taste burnt!
...which is the primary reason that I wouldn't drink their coffee for
many years. Obviously, as successful as the chain is, there are a lot
of people who like their beans burnt, but for quite some time, the
only drink I would buy at Starbucks is one that wasn't theirs (Tazo chai
tea latte).
Recently, however, I've relented and started drinking their white
chocolate mocha, which (due to the extra flavoring) isn't half bad.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
Dean
gas stations a little better.
As far as Starbucks - ecch. Gives me heartburn - every time. And I drink 6-8
cups of coffee a day. The rugrats behind the counter oughta stop smokin'
that rope too - LOL
Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They served
rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of (expensive imported)
potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:eqorsd$uju$1...@aioe.org...
clifto
> Notan wrote:
>
>> It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Definitely does taste burnt.
I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought so.
They do have a good coffeemaker descaler product, though.
--
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day,
they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
-- Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek's Steven Levy
Anon E. Muss
As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
voice but no AMPS service.
Sorry, that's just the facts.
John Navas
wrote in <S8idnQDxVe2OeVLY...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
>
>Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>
>It *does* taste burnt!
Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee? ;)
Ness_net
Let me get this right.
You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
As a definitive source of information?
Known for being so highly accurate.............
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:pt4vs2leubcod0vpk...@4ax.com...
Todd Allcock
> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............
To be fair, I find the street-level detail maps of Cingular and T-Mobile
to be highly accurate. Verizon's on-line maps, however, don't have the
detail for me to match service holes in my area with the map, which makes
John's argument suffer based on the map's assertions alone.
Don Udel (ETC)
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > On the
> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
And once again CR is right. IMHO, Starbucks does taste burnt and it's not a
very good value for the dollar. Given a choice between the two, I'd take
McDonalds every time for coffee.
Don
Notan
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <S8idnQDxVe2OeVLY...@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> On the contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>>> <http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=18130>
>> Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>>
>> It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
> all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
> franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee? ;)
"But it's all better" is purely objective.
You'd be more accurate with an "in my opinion" preface.
And, yes, I've tasted McDonald's. Not bad!
Also, IN MY OPINION, 7-11 makes a great cup of coffee.
--
Notan
clifto
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:42 -0700, Notan wrote:
>>Have you ever tasted Starbuck's coffee?
>>
>>It *does* taste burnt!
>
> Some does; some doesn't -- depends on the varietal or blend. But it's
> all better than McDonalds coffee as actually served at the average
> franchise. Or haven't you actually tasted McDonalds coffee? ;)
They never made a cup I'd ever call good, but there are thousands of
greasy-spoon diners that do worse, and all the McD coffee I've tasted
has been consistently better than any of the Starbucks I've had.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> Notan wrote:
>>
>>> It *does* taste burnt!
>> Definitely does taste burnt.
>
> I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought so.
>
> They do have a good coffeemaker descaler product, though.
What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.
SMS
> As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
> coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
> voice but no AMPS service.
>
> Sorry, that's just the facts.
I think that is probably where Navas is confused. They will always show
digital, if it exists. However a large number of the digital towers also
have AMPS coverage, which will get you coverage for quite a ways into
the surrounding open space. In fact they have to keeep AMPS on for now,
since the emergency call boxes are still AMPS, despite plans by
CalTrans to change them to CDMA.
Also, Verizon has been reassuring corporate customers with field
operations in the Bay Area that they won't reduce coverage, even when
they are permitted to turn off AMPS. Either all the areas will be
covered by digital, or they'll keep AMPS on until they are.
Unfortunately this policy only applies to roads, not trails!
I have to remember to turn off my phone when hiking in the Santa Cruz
mountains, Mount Tam, and the east bay parks, as it will go to AMPS, and
drain the battery in just a few hours.
What is unclear is if the reason that Verizon consistently is rated by
independent organizations as having far better coverage than Cingular is
due to AMPS or not. Other than stretches of 280 in San Mateo County,
Cingular's GSM coverage has been improving. My benchmark location out in
east Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita Road, finally got a tower a few
months ago, and now has coverage. Cingular issues non-stop press
releases about new towers they're installing, so they definitely are
working on catching up with Verizon in terms of digital coverage.
SMS
Besides often sitting too long, Starbucks tends to usually use very dark
roasts for their house coffee. To make it palatable, you have to add
sugar and ½ & ½. The Consumer Reports test was explicitly for black
coffee. Dark roast Starbucks coffee, that's been sitting for even 30
minutes, without sugar and ½ & ½, tastes terrible. At 30 minutes you've
also lost a lot of the health benefits of coffee, since the
anti-oxidants will be gone.
In any case, the coffee article was vastly different than the cellular
article. The coffee test was done by their staff. The cellular survey
was based on nearly 50,000 respondents, which is a extremely large
sample size with an extremely small margin of error, even when you
divide by metro area, and divide again by carrier. Remember, this was
not Consumer Reports asking "which carrier do you think is the best?" it
was a survey of subscriber's experiences. So unless someone believes
that a Verizon subscriber is likely to cut their carrier more slack than
a Cingular subscriber, you can't dispute the results on the basis of who
responded.
The only real fault with the CR survey, and in reality it's a benefit,
is that CR subscribers tend to be higher income individuals, with higher
education levels, and are more liberal. Hence they are much more likely
to travel, and even more likely to travel outside urban areas with their
phones. This gives Verizon an advantage because their network is much
more extensive than any of the other carriers.
A survey of individuals that never leave the urban area might have had
results that were less starkly different.
John Navas
wrote in <45d08c3c$0$27255$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>In any case, the coffee article was vastly different than the cellular
>article. The coffee test was done by their staff. The cellular survey
>was based on nearly 50,000 respondents, which is a extremely large
>sample size with an extremely small margin of error, even when you
>divide by metro area, and divide again by carrier.
No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
universe of cellular subscribers. In addition, the sample size is
actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
of error.
>The only real fault with the CR survey, and in reality it's a benefit,
>is that CR subscribers tend to be higher income individuals, with higher
>education levels, and are more liberal. Hence they are much more likely
>to travel, and even more likely to travel outside urban areas with their
>phones. This gives Verizon an advantage because their network is much
>more extensive than any of the other carriers.
This is, of course, a wishful claim with no real foundation.
John Navas
wrote in <45d08463$0$27249$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> As of 02/2007, AMPS coverage is a superset of digital cellular/PCS
>> coverage. IOW, there are no places that have digital cellular/PCS
>> voice but no AMPS service.
>>
>> Sorry, that's just the facts.
>
>I think that is probably where Navas is confused. They will always show
>digital, if it exists. However a large number of the digital towers also
>have AMPS coverage, which will get you coverage for quite a ways into
>the surrounding open space.
Not according to Verizon.
>In fact they have to keeep AMPS on for now,
>since the emergency call boxes are still AMPS, despite plans by
>CalTrans to change them to CDMA.
AMPS for the public will almost certainly go away rapidly in a year no
matter what CalTrans (actually Caltrans) does.
>Also, Verizon has been reassuring corporate customers with field
>operations in the Bay Area that they won't reduce coverage, even when
>they are permitted to turn off AMPS. Either all the areas will be
>covered by digital, or they'll keep AMPS on until they are.
>Unfortunately this policy only applies to roads, not trails!
This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>What is unclear is if the reason that Verizon consistently is rated by
>independent organizations as having far better coverage than Cingular is
>due to AMPS or not. Other than stretches of 280 in San Mateo County,
It's actually good all along that section of 280 _if_ you have a decent
phone. You must still be using a very old phone.
>Cingular's GSM coverage has been improving. My benchmark location out in
>east Pleasanton, east of Santa Rita Road, finally got a tower a few
>months ago, and now has coverage. Cingular issues non-stop press
>releases about new towers they're installing, so they definitely are
>working on catching up with Verizon in terms of digital coverage.
Cingular actually has been well ahead of Verizon in this area for some
time now. I guess the difference has now become so large that you're
finally having to start acknowledging it.
Kurt
"Ness_net" <ric...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> You are basing your 'opinion' on coverage maps?
> As a definitive source of information?
>
> Known for being so highly accurate.............
>
Yes, had to laugh at the "official" Cingular coverage map.
Just spent a week in the Sequoia national Forest and up the 178. No
reception anywhere outside of Three Rivers (down near Visalia). Ran into
an ATT truck at Giant Forest who said the only repeaters were down in
Three Rivers, and that the only recpetion one might get is if they can
get a clear shot of the valley below. I tried from many places - never
got a thing.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> What's in it? I use vinegar, but it takes like eight runs of fresh water
> through the machine afterward to get rid of the vinegar smell.
>
>
Sulfamic Acid, H3NSO3. I buy "Kenmore Distiller Cleaner", cat number 42-
34543, from Sears in a 12 oz bottle of crystals. Works great on coffee
pots as well as my water distiller. It simply eats elemental calcium
depots off stainless steel or aluminum. DON'T GET ANY ON YOU or you'll be
sorry!
It's in the family with acids used as sweeteners, as you'll read from the
Wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfamic_acid
Larry
--
VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
NOONE will be spared!
Larry
> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>
>
A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
http://www.chefmavro.com/
Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
Wakiki Beach....(c;
My friend in Atlanta calls Starbucks Fivebucks. We both agree it sucks.
DTC
> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
Like Extended GSM, huh?
SMS
> "Dean" <dea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1...@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>>
>>
>
> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/
> Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
> Wakiki Beach....(c;
For the bay area, try the coffee from
"http://www.mokshacoffeeroasting.com/index.html"
It's in a couple of stores and cafes, but he mainly does mail order.
One of the biggest problems with Starbucks is that they mainly do very
dark Italian or French roasts, rather than doing a medium roast, where
you taste the coffee rather than "the burned." They've equated "strong"
with "dark." The owner of this company uses Cingular, so John can feel
good about buying this coffee.
SMS
> And, yes, I've tasted McDonald's. Not bad!
>
> Also, IN MY OPINION, 7-11 makes a great cup of coffee.
Omig-d, I have a friend that just loves 7-11 coffee. There's one next to
the Starbucks over near Google in Mountain View. She'll go into
Starbucks to buy a scone, carrying her 7-11 coffee. I guess maybe I
should stop teasing her, and try the 7-11 coffee. However she uses
Sprint, so how good could her judgment be?
Tinman
news:45d0b5aa$0$27165$742e...@news.sonic.net...
I don't think all 7-11 coffee is the same. Back east I liked it. Can't stand
it in the 7-11s out west. YMMV.
I'd take any of it, though, compared to the sludge sold at Starbucks if
ordering "just" coffee (which they don't seem to make).
--
Mike
Notan
I would think that 7-11's coffee would be pretty consistent from place to place,
as it's prepackaged and all comes from the same manufacturer/distributor.
Maybe not!
--
Notan
SMS
> For those of us who enjoy a more traditional, and admittedly more plebian
> "cuppa Joe," there are a bunch of coffees I prefer to Starbucks
> (including McDonalds!) but the king of coffees remains Dunkin' Donuts, as
> any self-respecting "Nor'easter" will attest to!
Last time I tried Dunkin' Donuts coffee was in Korea. It was horrible.
This was a time I would have gone to Starbucks, but the one by my hotel
opened very late, about 9:00 a.m.. I needed to be on a train every day
at 8:00 a.m. to go to LG, and couldn't hang around waiting for Starbucks
to open. I gave up on morning coffee for that trip, on the next trip I
brought my own coffee and brewing apparatus, and a stainless steel
commuter mug.
During lunch, the waiters at LG's guest restaurant took orders for
coffee or tea, and when it came we couldn't tell which was which. The
coffee was very weak, and the tea was strong. The LG people were very
amused at the Abraham Lincoln coffee/tea joke, "Waiter, if this is
coffee, then bring me tea. But if this is tea, then bring me coffee."
From "What is American Culture"
"Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain, whose
name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to produce
what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European taste. Proper
coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is bittersweet, not
burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff because they drown
its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called "latte", something I
never have observed an Italian request during many years of travel in
that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino, mixing a small
amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam. If Americans
do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices? They do so
precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an affordable
one for secretaries and shopgirls."
I was very glad to be able to use a CDMA phone in Korea, on the train
ride to LG, though it was cheaper to rent a phone than to roam on
Verizon, so that's what I did. There is no GSM service in Korea, though
you can rent a CDMA phone that has a SIM card slot for your GSM SIM, so
you can roam, but it's expensive, and it may only work with European
carriers. They did this for the 2002 FIFA World Cup, and I presume that
they kept the system in place.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]
Tinman
news:1a2dneJN68isJU3Y...@giganews.com...
> Tinman wrote:
>>
>> I don't think all 7-11 coffee is the same. Back east I liked it. Can't
>> stand it in the 7-11s out west. YMMV.
>>
>> I'd take any of it, though, compared to the sludge sold at Starbucks if
>> ordering "just" coffee (which they don't seem to make).
>
> I would think that 7-11's coffee would be pretty consistent from place to
> place,
> as it's prepackaged and all comes from the same manufacturer/distributor.
>
> Maybe not!
Without question it was (haven't compared it since 2003) noticeably
different. Even the coffee-area setups were different. Also, most 7-11s I
see out west are also gas stations. Most, if not all, of the 7-11s I used to
stop at back in NY are still stand-alone stores.
If I had to describe the stuff out in the western 7-11s it would be, in a
word, "weak." Not that the NY stuff was *anywhere* near Starbucks' level,
but it at least tasted like coffee and not tea. YMMV.
--
Mike
SMS
> I would think that 7-11's coffee would be pretty consistent from place
> to place,
> as it's prepackaged and all comes from the same manufacturer/distributor.
>
> Maybe not!
I think that they grind it in the store now. 7-11's are franchises, so
maybe if the store owner wants to sell good coffee he is allowed to do
so. I see teachers and employees of the school my son goes to drinking
7-11 coffee in the morning. Maybe it's actually okay.
The prepaid phones sold at 7-11 do not support AMPS. They are on the
Cingular GSM network.
John Navas
<Xns98D586E7F81...@208.49.80.253>:
>"Dean" <dea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1...@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>
>A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
>Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
>in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
>http://www.chefmavro.com/
>Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
>Wakiki Beach....(c;
Lion is decent, but far from the best Kona coffee -- next time try Sugai
<http://www.sugaikonacoffee.com/>.
That said, Kona is a bit wimpy for my taste -- I'd much rather have a
good aged Sumatra, or organic East Timor, particularly as roasted by my
favorite coffee place, Pacific Bay Coffee in Walnut Creek, a genuine
micro-roastery. <http://www.pacificbaycoffee.com/> It's far superior
to Peet's or Starbucks, not to mention (yuk!) Mickey D, DD, or 7-11.
Notan
If you have the opportunity, try their "French Roast."
--
Notan
John Navas
wrote in <45d0b4e2$0$27200$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>One of the biggest problems with Starbucks is that they mainly do very
>dark Italian or French roasts, rather than doing a medium roast, where
>you taste the coffee rather than "the burned." They've equated "strong"
>with "dark."
If you had any real experience with Starbucks you'd know that it also
has medium roasts, including some that are quite good, which can be
requested at many (but not all) locations.
Peet's also over-roasts some of its coffees.
On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
undiscriminating people think is "burnt". Just ask to have it diluted
down to whatever strength you can handle.
>The owner of this company uses Cingular, so John can feel
>good about buying this coffee.
I rarely go to Starbucks, or for that matter any large chain (Peet's
included, not to mention the wretched "coffee" at Mickey D, DD, and
7-11), since I much prefer fresh micro-roasts like Pacific Bay Coffee in
Walnut Creek.
John Navas
wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>
>Like Extended GSM, huh?
Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
John Navas
wrote in <45d0bafb$0$27201$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Notan wrote:
>
>> I would think that 7-11's coffee would be pretty consistent from place
>> to place,
>> as it's prepackaged and all comes from the same manufacturer/distributor.
>>
>> Maybe not!
>
>I think that they grind it in the store now. 7-11's are franchises, so
>maybe if the store owner wants to sell good coffee he is allowed to do
>so. I see teachers and employees of the school my son goes to drinking
>7-11 coffee in the morning. Maybe it's actually okay.
Or maybe they don't know or don't care about the difference, like so
many people. I've get to get decent coffee in _any_ 7-11. YMMV.
>The prepaid phones sold at 7-11 do not support AMPS. They are on the
>Cingular GSM network.
Same old, same old vendetta. You must be upset by how well Cingular is
doing and how badly all your predictions have turned out.
SMS
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > On the
> contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>
> And once again CR is right.
Coffee is pretty subjective though, more than even some other food items
such as ice cream, where the poorer ice creams pump a lot of air in, and
use artificial flavors and thickeners, and may use corn syrup rather
than sugar.
That said, according to one article I read, McDonalds started using 100%
Arabica beans about a year ago. If that's the case, they may really be
better than Starbucks for regular coffee, since McDonald's sells a lot
of regular coffee and makes it fresh every few minutes, while at
Starbucks it can often sit around for an hour while customers buy
lattes, and frappacinos (sp?). There's nothing special about the beans
that Starbucks uses versus the coffee that McDonald's uses.
Where CR is most useful is in their surveys of various sorts, such as
vehicle reliability, and wireless coverage. They aren't asking people
what they like best, they're asking people for their own experiences, so
any bias is eliminated. They also use extremely large sample sizes which
gives their surveys a very small margin of error.
Some people complain that Consumer Reports subscribers aren't
representative of the population at large, but in reality this cancels
out when they do their surveys. I don't think that anyone claims that
with such a huge sample size that the results would be much different if
they surveyed non-subscribers, though as I pointed out, there might be a
small difference based on the socio-economic differences between CR
subscribers and the general population. For many of the metro areas in
the last survey, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the differences
between the carriers were quite large. In some areas they were not very
large.
Oh, and In 'N Out has good iced tea!
John Navas
wrote in <45d0bafb$0$27201$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>I think that they grind it in the store now. 7-11's are franchises,
Many are, but quite a few (thousands) are actually company-owned.
>so
>maybe if the store owner wants to sell good coffee he is allowed to do
>so. ...
Branding is actually carefully controlled.
You need to check your "facts".
clifto
They don't seem to say. It's made by Urnex and it's three packets for $4.
Someone in alt.coffee recommended it to me with the caveat that I should
NOT use vinegar. (I'm convinced vinegar ruined my last coffeemaker by
etching a pinhole in the aluminum tubing surrounding the heater.)
clifto
> On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
> rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
> undiscriminating people think is "burnt".
One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
people who frequent places that make good coffee.
clifto
> From "What is American Culture"
>
> "Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain, whose
> name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to produce
> what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European taste. Proper
> coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is bittersweet, not
> burned.
There might be something to that. The great little coffee shop I mentioned
in a very recent article was Italian owned and operated.
John Navas
wrote in <45d0b98e$0$27201$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
> From "What is American Culture"
>
>"Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain, whose
>name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to produce
>what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European taste. Proper
>coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is bittersweet, not
>burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff because they drown
>its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called "latte", something I
>never have observed an Italian request during many years of travel in
>that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino, mixing a small
>amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam. If Americans
>do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices? They do so
>precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an affordable
>one for secretaries and shopgirls."
Yet another urban legend. In fact Starbucks (like Peet's) succeeds by
giving people what they want, Americanized coffee-based drinks that most
people here much prefer to authentic Italian-style cappuccino. It's not
about coffee (except in the case of Peet's) -- it's about favorite
coffee-based drinks.
John Navas
wrote in <qsOdnf40c4L5Jk3Y...@giganews.com>:
>Tinman wrote:
>> Without question it was (haven't compared it since 2003) noticeably
>> different. Even the coffee-area setups were different. Also, most 7-11s I
>> see out west are also gas stations. Most, if not all, of the 7-11s I used to
>> stop at back in NY are still stand-alone stores.
>>
>> If I had to describe the stuff out in the western 7-11s it would be, in a
>> word, "weak." Not that the NY stuff was *anywhere* near Starbucks' level,
>> but it at least tasted like coffee and not tea. YMMV.
>
>If you have the opportunity, try their "French Roast."
Been there; done that. Mediocre.
If you have the opportunity, compare a dark roast aged Sumatra at a good
micro-roastery.
Notan
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:09:23 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <qsOdnf40c4L5Jk3Y...@giganews.com>:
>
>> Tinman wrote:
>
>>> Without question it was (haven't compared it since 2003) noticeably
>>> different. Even the coffee-area setups were different. Also, most 7-11s I
>>> see out west are also gas stations. Most, if not all, of the 7-11s I used to
>>> stop at back in NY are still stand-alone stores.
>>>
>>> If I had to describe the stuff out in the western 7-11s it would be, in a
>>> word, "weak." Not that the NY stuff was *anywhere* near Starbucks' level,
>>> but it at least tasted like coffee and not tea. YMMV.
>> If you have the opportunity, try their "French Roast."
>
> Been there; done that. Mediocre.
>
> If you have the opportunity, compare a dark roast aged Sumatra at a good
> micro-roastery.
I'm not saying 7-11 has *the* best coffee, although IN MY OPINION it's
pretty good, but for the price and convenience, it's not a bad choice.
--
Notan
John Navas
<ktr6a4-...@remote.clifto.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
>> rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
>> undiscriminating people think is "burnt".
>
>One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
>was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>people who frequent places that make good coffee.
In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.
I consider myself a discriminating person; I do frequent places that
make excellent (not just good) coffee; and my own opinions are that
tastes vary, that Starbucks has quite different coffees, that some (not
all) Starbucks coffees are pretty good, and that what you're calling
"burnt" is just over-roasted to your particular taste.
Notan
Have you ever considered the possibility that *you* might be wrong?
--
Notan
SMS
> One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
> was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
> just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
> and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
> people who frequent places that make good coffee.
The problem is that non-coffee people often equate burnt with strong.
Apparently they have never had a cup of strong, medium roast coffee,
which is understandable since you can't get such a thing at Starbucks,
unless a store happens to do a medium roast as the "coffee of the day,"
and that's pretty rare, in my experience.
There are smaller, specialty coffee houses that do medium roast brewed
coffee, but you have to search them out. Or you can buy medium roast
coffee and do it yourself. The advantage is you can drink such coffee
black without drowning it with milk and sugar. It's like drinking good
whiskey straight, rather than mixing it with something sweet like soda
or orange juice to hide the taste. Plain coffee is much less profitable
than $3-4 espresso drinks, so understandably Starbucks doesn't want to
push plain coffee.
You often stumble across good coffee in places that you don't expect. If
it's a cafe or store owned by Pakistani's or Indian's, often the coffee
is good, Chinese, usually not so good, though judging from the number of
coffee houses in Taiwan, it should be better than it is.
See "http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EK18Aa01.html"
What is American Culture
"2. Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain,
whose name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to
produce what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European
taste. Proper coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is
bittersweet, not burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff
because they drown its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called
"latte", something I never have observed an Italian request during many
years of travel in that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino,
mixing a small amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam.
If Americans do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices?
They do so precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an
affordable one for secretaries and shopgirls."
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
John Navas
wrote in <45d0bfe9$0$27210$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>That said, according to one article I read, McDonalds started using 100%
>Arabica beans about a year ago.
True, but Mickey D sources coffee in bulk from Kraft Foods, which gets
it from whatever countries are cheapo du jour, making 100% Arabica a
relatively meaningless distinction for Mickey D.
>If that's the case, they may really be
>better than Starbucks for regular coffee, since McDonald's sells a lot
>of regular coffee and makes it fresh every few minutes, while at
>Starbucks it can often sit around for an hour while customers buy
>lattes, and frappacinos (sp?).
One hour is nothing, and Mickey D coffee is only brewed regularly during
rush hours -- try it at 4 in the morning when it's been cooking for
hours (as I have).
>There's nothing special about the beans
>that Starbucks uses versus the coffee that McDonald's uses.
Actually there is. Starbucks deals in varietals and specific blends
that it buys direct. Not so Mickey D (as I noted above). What Mickey D
and Kraft do have are very big marketing budgets.
The CR coffee "review" was based on "trained tasters" (CR staffers)
visiting only "two stores of each company". It's sad to see how far CR
has fallen.
>Where CR is most useful is in their surveys of various sorts, such as
>vehicle reliability, and wireless coverage. They aren't asking people
>what they like best, they're asking people for their own experiences, so
>any bias is eliminated. They also use extremely large sample sizes which
>gives their surveys a very small margin of error.
CR surveys actually suffer from being self-selected samples of a
non-representative population, so they can't be validly generalized to
the universe of subscribers. And they actually have a relatively small
sample size when broken down by area, making the results essentially
meaningless.
>Some people complain that Consumer Reports subscribers aren't
>representative of the population at large, but in reality this cancels
>out when they do their surveys.
Statistics don't work that way.
>... For many of the metro areas in
>the last survey, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the differences
>between the carriers were quite large. In some areas they were not very
>large.
In fact the differences were relatively small, probably well within the
margin of error, although there's really no way of knowing that given
the flawed methodology.
John Navas
wrote in <45d0cbbb$0$27157$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>clifto wrote:
>
>> One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
>> was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>> just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>> and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>> people who frequent places that make good coffee.
>
>The problem is that non-coffee people often equate burnt with strong.
The real problem is that Starbucks bashers have adopted "burnt" with no
real appreciation for darker roasts.
>Apparently they have never had a cup of strong, medium roast coffee,
Like so many others, you're confusing strength with deepness of roast.
They are two different things entirely.
>which is understandable since you can't get such a thing at Starbucks,
>unless a store happens to do a medium roast as the "coffee of the day,"
>and that's pretty rare, in my experience.
Actually quite common.
>There are smaller, specialty coffee houses that do medium roast brewed
>coffee, but you have to search them out.
The better ones also have light and dark roasts.
Some people prefer medium roast. Other people prefer dark roast. Still
others prefer light roast. There is no one best roast.
>Or you can buy medium roast
>coffee and do it yourself. The advantage is you can drink such coffee
>black without drowning it with milk and sugar. It's like drinking good
>whiskey straight, rather than mixing it with something sweet like soda
>or orange juice to hide the taste.
Likewise good dark roasts.
>Plain coffee is much less profitable
>than $3-4 espresso drinks, so understandably Starbucks doesn't want to
>push plain coffee.
Can't resist bashing, can you?
>You often stumble across good coffee in places that you don't expect. If
>it's a cafe or store owned by Pakistani's or Indian's, often the coffee
>is good, Chinese, usually not so good, though judging from the number of
>coffee houses in Taiwan, it should be better than it is.
Mostly dreadful.
>See "http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EK18Aa01.html"
>
>What is American Culture
>
>"2. Burnt coffee at exorbitant prices. The most popular cafe chain,
>whose name decent people do not pronounce, burns its coffee beans to
>produce what Americans mistakenly believe is an authentic European
>taste. Proper coffee, by which of course I mean Italian coffee, is
>bittersweet, not burned. Americans evidently hate the wretched stuff
>because they drown its flavor in a flood of milk, in the so-called
>"latte", something I never have observed an Italian request during many
>years of travel in that country. By contrast, Italians drink cappuccino,
>mixing a small amount of milk into the coffee and leaving a cap of foam.
>If Americans do not like it, why do they buy it at exorbitant prices?
>They do so precisely because the high price makes it a luxury, but an
>affordable one for secretaries and shopgirls."
How many more times are you going to post this biased drivel?
John Navas
wrote in <57idnSs4y98CVk3Y...@giganews.com>:
Sure. And you?
Steven J. Sobol
> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/
Hm. An Italian deli (of all places) sells Kona near my house. I'll
have to go try a bag...
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
Notan
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:18:39 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <57idnSs4y98CVk3Y...@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:32 -0600, clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <ktr6a4-...@remote.clifto.com>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On the other hand, both Peet's and Starbucks make full strength coffee,
>>>>> rather than the weak stuff made by many coffee places, which some
>>>>> undiscriminating people think is "burnt".
>>>> One of the nice things about working the Hispanofest in Melrose Park IL
>>>> was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>>>> just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>>>> and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>>>> people who frequent places that make good coffee.
>>> In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
>>> diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.
>>>
>>> I consider myself a discriminating person; I do frequent places that
>>> make excellent (not just good) coffee; and my own opinions are that
>>> tastes vary, that Starbucks has quite different coffees, that some (not
>>> all) Starbucks coffees are pretty good, and that what you're calling
>>> "burnt" is just over-roasted to your particular taste.
>> Have you ever considered the possibility that *you* might be wrong?
>
> Sure. And you?
All the time.
But you frequently have a hard time discerning between fact and your opinion.
--
Notan
John Navas
wrote in <_rSdnfal7MgcTU3Y...@giganews.com>:
To repeat what I said earlier:
In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.
--
Notan
It's my opinion.
--
Notan
John Navas
<sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in
<slrnet1jpq....@amethyst.justthe.net>:
>In article <Xns98D586E7F81...@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
>
>> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
>> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
>> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
>> http://www.chefmavro.com/
>
>Hm. An Italian deli (of all places) sells Kona near my house. I'll
>have to go try a bag...
Be warned that there are great differences in so-called Kona coffees.
See <http://www.coffeereview.com/reference.cfm?ID=63>:
However, retail sales of Kona coffee continue to be rife with dubious
marketing practices. Commercial roasters produce Kona style coffee,
Kona blend coffee, and Hawaiian hotels brew coffee vaguely labeled
Kona that probably consists in large part of (often low-grade)
Central America beans. In fact, it is difficult to find a good cup of
Kona coffee in Kona, and flat-out impossible in hotels. The colorful
bags of Kona coffee sold in Hawaiian supermarkets and airport gift
stores are almost always poor quality and stale. ...
Kona _blends_ typically only have a small amount of real Kona coffee,
the flavor of which is lost in the non-Kona beans. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kona_coffee#Kona_blends>.
Even pure Kona coffees vary considerably, depending on where and how
they are grown. The good ones are _very_ expensive, comparable in price
to other great coffees (e.g., Jamaica Blue Mountain).
So don't judge Kona by whatever the local Italian deli has to sell,
which is probably not representative of the best that Kona has to offer.
Another coffee worth trying is Molokai, another of the Hawaiian islands.
Quite a bit richer than Kona. <http://www.molokaicoffee.com/> Likewise
Kauai Estate Reserve <http://www.kauaicoffee.com/>.
Kurt
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Mickey D got a higher score than Starbucks for their coffee
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16951509/
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
clifto
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:32 -0600, clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <ktr6a4-...@remote.clifto.com>:
>>was that on break time there was a nice privately owned coffee shop
>>just a couple of blocks off the beaten path. They pulled a mean espresso
>>and made delicious coffee. And Starbucks tastes burnt to discriminating
>>people who frequent places that make good coffee.
>
> In your opinion. Opinions vary. And your insults only serve to
> diminish the persuasiveness of your argument.
I didn't think that was much of an insult, if one at all. I would if I
believed you could have tried this little coffee shop's product, but
that's unlikely.
In any event, it's no more insulting than your remark about how "some
undiscriminating people" think the coffee is burnt.
John Navas
in <labolide-9A8192...@news.giganews.com>:
A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
LOL!
Notan
<snip>
> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>
> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
> LOL!
And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
his opinion(s) above all others.
--
Notan
John Navas
wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3Y...@giganews.com>:
And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
Notan
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3Y...@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>
>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>> LOL!
>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>
> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
--
Notan
John Navas
wrote in <Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3Y...@giganews.com>:
You tell me.
Notan
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
> wrote in <Y_6dnRKaw6fbeU3Y...@giganews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:33:33 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>
>>> wrote in <2tGdnScjYN-xQE3Y...@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>>>> LOL!
>>>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>>>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>>> And, once again, you come across as a mean-spirited and immature person
>>> who thinks attacking the man will somehow advance his point of view.
>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>
> You tell me.
If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
you win.
Goodnight, John.
--
Notan
John Navas
wrote in <gbqdnYegf7Iydk3Y...@giganews.com>:
No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.
Kurt
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Starbucks is still not great coffee. Worse are their often stale
pastries.
Jeff
>>>> It's different when you're on the receiving end, isn't it?
>>>
>>> You tell me.
>>
>>If answering a question with a question is your idea of mature, I guess
>>you win.
>
> No, you win -- it's clearly so important to you.
>
I know it's close to Valentine's, so why don't you two kiss and make up.
You're flirting is making me sick!
SMS
Actually for Starbucks, where all the U.S. stores are company owned and
operated, two stores should be sufficient because there isn't a lot of
variability. For McDonald's, where there a lot of franchises, as well as
a lot of company owned stores, you'd expect more variability on some
menu items.
The burnt taste that they complained about is not some huge secret, it's
how Starbucks roasts and brews their regular coffee.
Todd Allcock
> No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
> surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
> population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
> universe of cellular subscribers.
How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
scenario?
For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)
> In addition, the sample size is
> actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
> of error.
Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
things out. ;-)
John Navas
wrote in <45d0f6ff$0$27160$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Notan wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A panel of "trained testers" took their brew black -- no cream, milk
>>> or sugar -- and visited two locations of each company.
>>>
>>> Two locations! Not just one? Wow!
>>> For "trained testers" read CR staffers.
>>> LOL!
>>
>> And, once again, you come across as snob, who think that people value
>> his opinion(s) above all others.
>
>Actually for Starbucks, where all the U.S. stores are company owned and
>operated, two stores should be sufficient because there isn't a lot of
>variability.
Starbucks actually has quite a bit of variability between stores because
it's not a tightly controlled operation and has distinct submarkets
within its operation (e.g., Starbucks in Safeway stores versus
storefronts).
>For McDonald's, where there a lot of franchises, as well as
>a lot of company owned stores, you'd expect more variability on some
>menu items.
Mickey D's is actually well known for tight control of the delivered
product.
In other words, you have that backwards.
>The burnt taste that they complained about is not some huge secret, it's
>how Starbucks roasts and brews their regular coffee.
The brew has nothing at all to do with it. It's strictly a matter of
roasting, which is controlled by the parent company, but varies
considerably between the different coffees it sells.
John Navas
<Xq6Ah.6213$4H1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>:
After you.
John Navas
<elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <eqqvcn$1ei$1...@aioe.org>:
>At 12 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> No matter how many times you make this claim, it still isn't true. CR
>> surveys suffer from self-selected samples of a non-representative
>> population, making the data interesting, but not truly applicable to the
>> universe of cellular subscribers.
>
>How does the "non-representative" group skew the results when the
>respondents' class (CR subscribers) has nothing to do with the product
>reviewed (cellphones) and are aswering objective questions (i.e. saying
>one had a dropped call isn't an "opinion") at least in a real-world
>scenario?
Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
universe. CR fails on two counts:
1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.
>For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
>TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
>magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
>
>But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
>"bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
>get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
>example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)
You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann
To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.
>> In addition, the sample size is
>> actually small when broken down by area, further increasing the amount
>> of error.
>
>Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
>things out. ;-)
That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.
Scott
>
> I consider myself a discriminating person;
And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you would be
alone in that view.
DTC
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>
> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
I'll rephrase that...
Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
John Navas
wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Nope. Just my own experience.
Any citations to the contrary? ;)
SMS
> For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
> TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
> magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
I guess that John is trying to convince people that if somehow you could
get a sample size of 50,000 respondents, and it was all random, that the
results would be different. Of course this is ridiculous, the sample of
CR subscribers that are Verizon subscribers, are not going to be biased
for or against Verizon, any more than the Sprint, Cingular or T-Mobile
subscribers are going to be biased against their own carriers. I think
what he doesn't understand, is that the survey isn't asking 50,000
people "which carrier is best in your city?," it's asking for an
evaluation of your own carrier.
Now if you surveyed only long distance truck drivers, and trucking
firms, of course Verizon is going to have a huge advantage, because they
have much wider coverage than Cingular in non-urban areas due to AMPS.
The commercial carriers still use AMPS in areas where there is no CDMA
coverage (see "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944").
> But asking "cable TV subscribers," "Ford automobile owners," or
> "bricklayers" objective questions about cellular service should tend to
> get the same results if the sample sizes are large enough. (Unless, for
> example, cell companies discriminate against bricklayers...)
Yes, that's the whole point.
Of course Navas is just extremely upset that for yet another year,
Cingular fared extremely poorly in the Consumer Reports survey AND the
J.D. Power surveys. That's why he feels compelled to make up ridiculous
stories to try and defend them, part of which is trying to attack the
companies doing the surveys.
> Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
> things out. ;-)
The margin of error is still extremely small, even when broken down by
region and then by carrier. Additionally, in some regions, such as the
San Francisco Bay Area, there is such a large difference, that even with
the maximum amount of error applied, Cingular still does extremely
poorly, and Verizon does extremely well.
SMS
He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.
John Navas
wrote in <45d10bc3$0$27176$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> For example, if the survey was a question like "do you get your news from
>> TV, radio, internet or magazines?" asking a group comprised entirely of
>> magazine subscribers would obviously skew the results.
>
>I guess that John is trying to convince people that if somehow you could
>get a sample size of 50,000 respondents, and it was all random, that the
>results would be different.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- I'm just stating the
science of statistics -- makes no difference how many samples you take
when the sampling isn't random, as in the case of CR, where is the
population isn't representative, and the sample is self-selected, two
serious flaws.
>Of course this is ridiculous, the sample of
>CR subscribers that are Verizon subscribers, are not going to be biased
>for or against Verizon, any more than the Sprint, Cingular or T-Mobile
>subscribers are going to be biased against their own carriers. I think
>what he doesn't understand, is that the survey isn't asking 50,000
>people "which carrier is best in your city?," it's asking for an
>evaluation of your own carrier.
You clearly don't understand the concept of sample bias, which has
nothing to do with your kind of bias.
>Now if you surveyed only long distance truck drivers, and trucking
>firms, of course Verizon is going to have a huge advantage, because they
>have much wider coverage than Cingular in non-urban areas due to AMPS.
>The commercial carriers still use AMPS in areas where there is no CDMA
>coverage (see "http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=51944").
Again, that's irrelevant, because that's not how sampling works.
>Of course Navas is just extremely upset that for yet another year,
>Cingular fared extremely poorly in the Consumer Reports survey AND the
>J.D. Power surveys. That's why he feels compelled to make up ridiculous
>stories to try and defend them, part of which is trying to attack the
>companies doing the surveys.
Nothing of the sort. I have no agenda -- I'm simply sick of your
agenda. In fact the differences in the better surveys (e.g., J.D.
Powers) are actually small, probably within the level of sampling error.
>> Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure work
>> things out. ;-)
>
>The margin of error is still extremely small, even when broken down by
>region and then by carrier.
There'a actually no way to know the actual margin of error, given the
way the survey was taken, and the small sample size when broken down by
area makes it even worse.
>Additionally, in some regions, such as the
>San Francisco Bay Area, there is such a large difference, that even with
>the maximum amount of error applied, Cingular still does extremely
>poorly, and Verizon does extremely well.
Again, the differences in the better surveys are actually small,
probably within the level of sampling error.
John Navas
wrote in <45d10bef$0$27176$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
--
Best regards,
John Navas
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Scott
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>>> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>>>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>>>
>>> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
>>
>>I'll rephrase that...
>>
>>Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
>
> Nope. Just my own experience.
So, all you have is biased, anecdotal fairy tales to back up your claim.
Sorry- not enough.
>
> Any citations to the contrary?
Of course there are- companies are always eager to talk about technology
they are not using.
You really must be that stupid.
Scott
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:53:01 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45d10bef$0$27176$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:5kh1t2d0jh5t78i47...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> I consider myself a discriminating person;
>>>
>>> And based on the many opinions you have posted over the years, you
>>> would be alone in that view.
>>
>>He discriminates against the truth and the facts on a daily basis.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
And those that don't have a clue use Google as their bible and post under
the name John Navas.
Todd Allcock
> Statistics 101: because it's non-representative of the universe. To
> conduct meaningful sampling, you must take a _random_ sample of the
> universe.
Right. In theory. Which is why I followed it with "real-world."
> CR fails on two counts:
> 1. CR subscribers are not drawn randomly from the universe, and have not
> been shown representative of any universe other than CR subscribers.
> 2. Survey respondents are self-selected, and thus inevitably have an
> unknown bias that's not accounted for in survey results.
A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
negatively by presumably the same amount.
> You're making assumptions, and "assumptions are the mother of all
> screwups". (c) Jeff Liebermann
>
> To truly understand the issue, you need to study up on sampling.
I'm familiar with the theory, and often a true representative sample is
diffrent to obtain in the real world. For example, drug/medical testing
must be peformed on wiling participants- inherently a "non-
representative" sample, but one that doesn't necessarily skew results,
because the internal biological chemistry of humans isn't demonstrably
different between those willing and those unwilling.
> >Perhaps, but that old "standard deviation" equation tends to insure
work
> >things out. ;-)
>
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.
Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
pretty well. In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.
Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
study, has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?
My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)
Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.
Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.
james g. keegan jr.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
[...]
> That's not how it works. Again, study up on sampling.
i hope this doesn't wound you too deeply john, but i suspect that
most sane readers would accept consumer reports statistics over your
biased commentary.
Gary
to my web page and click on the Hilo Hattie link. Or just follow this link:
http://www.hilohattie.com/category-index.cfm?catid=20
I order coffee and macadamia nuts as gifts for the family. Good delivery
times and reasonable prices.
--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary at
www.under-1-roof.com
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D586E7F81...@208.49.80.253...
> "Dean" <dea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:JcTzh.77$0O1...@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Best coffee I ever had was Kona, in Hawaii about 25 years ago. They
>> served rice as a starch with breakfast there too, in lieu of
>> (expensive imported) potatoes. Interesting. Wonder if they still do...
>>
>>
>
> A friend of mine in Honolulu sends me care packages of Kona from Lion
> Coffee Company (800-338-8353 or fax 800-972-0777) www.lioncoffee.com. I'm
> in love with a Kona blend coffee from Chef Mavro's in Honolulu
> http://www.chefmavro.com/
> Lion makes it for Chef Mavro. (Check out Chef Mavro's video cooking on
> Wakiki Beach....(c;
>
> My friend in Atlanta calls Starbucks Fivebucks. We both agree it sucks.
>
> Larry
> --
> VIRUS ALERT! VISTA has been released!
> NOONE will be spared!
SMS
> A bias that would most likely be even distributed among all carriers- for
> example, if self-selection is, say, 20% more likely to generate replies
> from people unhappy with their service, then all carriers will be skewed
> negatively by presumably the same amount.
That's really the key point. It's not as if the CR subscribers are
somehow biased towards one carrier or another. It's not like surveying a
group of long-distance truck drivers that would necessarily have
coverage requirements that are different from the average person.
> Given the lack of a completely "blind" random survey, the CR one holds up
> pretty well. In the real world, the ideal sample population is difficult
> to find, so you do the best you can with as unbiased a sampling as you can.
It's funny to see people latch onto the lack of a double-blind random
survey every time a survey presents results that they disagree with,
while at the same time not being able to present and reasons why the
survey is not credible. Yet in most cases it's not possible to conduct
such a survey. The CR survey was very well designed, since any bias
cancels out since it would be equal among all carriers. Combine that
with the huge sample size, even larger than the J.D. Power surveys, and
you have results that everyone agrees are the best you can hope for.
> Put another way, other than Cingular's "secret" least-dropped-calls
> study, has any consumer group or independent research firm (i.e. J.D.
> Powers) ever rated Cingular with the best network?
Not only that, but Cingular has steadfastly refused to release the
specifics of that study, which is highly suspect. Sprint is still suing
them, AFAIK, and Cingular countersued claiming that Sprint doesn't have
"the most powerful network" whatever that means.
> My experience over the last few years tends to support the CR study-
> whenever, in my travels, I find myself in an area where some people can't
> get service and some can, the ones who can have more often than not been
> Verizon users. (Because I always ask, out of curiosity.)
Yeah, in my area (SF Bay Area) it's almost always the Verizon users that
have coverage when no one else does. My daughter is constantly letting
her friends and teammates use her phone when their Sprint, T-Mobile, and
Cingular phones don't work. I do have to say that Cingular is improving
quite a bit out here, and I notice a difference over the past year in
terms of improved coverage.
> Certainly that's not scientific, and certainly is not a "representative
> sample" but it is generally the case in my experience.
>
> Having said that, I still wouldn't use Verizon's service- between the
> crippled phones, and high prices, I'm just not interested, but that
> doesn't mean they haven't got the network right.
The crippled phones are an annoyance, though they are often hackable.
Their prices are no higher than Sprint or Cingular, and often are less
due to corporate discounts.
SMS
Yeah, but he's got the insane reader base locked up.
Austinman
Todd Allcock
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
True enough, but sometimes those requiring evidence are forced to attack
the man who refuses to provide evidence... ;-)
Todd Allcock
> when the sampling isn't random, as in the case of CR, where is the
> population isn't representative, and the sample is self-selected, two
> serious flaws.
Non-random and non-representative are not the same thing, necessarily.
If I wanted to determine the average diameter of M&M candies, I could
open a bag, and average the diameters of all of the blue ones. While the
sample was non-random, and perhaps flawed statistically, the sample was
certainly representative and I'll guarantee you my "real world" answer
would be
correct within the margin of error!
Same with the CR study- as non-random as the sample might have been,
there seems to be no good reason to believe why it would not be
representative.
kevinkei...@sbcglobal.net
out and re-brewed. If you notice on each pot they have electronic egg
times set to go off. Once it does, It's time for a fresh batch.
SMS wrote:
> Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message > On the
>> contrary -- Consumer Reports suffers from a self-selected sample
>>> of a non-representative universe. It also suffers from serious
>>> screwups, like the recent car seat debacle. And it just rated McDonalds
>>> coffee as better than Starbucks -- LOL!
>>
>> And once again CR is right.
>
> Coffee is pretty subjective though, more than even some other food items
> such as ice cream, where the poorer ice creams pump a lot of air in, and
> use artificial flavors and thickeners, and may use corn syrup rather
> than sugar.
>
> That said, according to one article I read, McDonalds started using 100%
> Arabica beans about a year ago. If that's the case, they may really be
> better than Starbucks for regular coffee, since McDonald's sells a lot
> of regular coffee and makes it fresh every few minutes, while at
> Starbucks it can often sit around for an hour while customers buy
> lattes, and frappacinos (sp?). There's nothing special about the beans
> that Starbucks uses versus the coffee that McDonald's uses.
>
> Where CR is most useful is in their surveys of various sorts, such as
> vehicle reliability, and wireless coverage. They aren't asking people
> what they like best, they're asking people for their own experiences, so
> any bias is eliminated. They also use extremely large sample sizes which
> gives their surveys a very small margin of error.
>
> Some people complain that Consumer Reports subscribers aren't
> representative of the population at large, but in reality this cancels
> out when they do their surveys. I don't think that anyone claims that
> with such a huge sample size that the results would be much different if
> they surveyed non-subscribers, though as I pointed out, there might be a
> small difference based on the socio-economic differences between CR
> subscribers and the general population. For many of the metro areas in
> the last survey, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the differences
> between the carriers were quite large. In some areas they were not very
> large.
>
> Oh, and In 'N Out has good iced tea!
SMS
> At Starbucks the house coffee sits only for 40 mins. Then It is dumped
> out and re-brewed. If you notice on each pot they have electronic egg
> times set to go off. Once it does, It's time for a fresh batch.
Not good enough. 20 minutes is the limit to receive the all the
antioxidant benefit.
Coffee has to be ground, brewed and drunk within 20 minutes, otherwise
it became a pro-oxidant.
"Maximum antioxidant activity was observed for the medium-roasted
coffee; the dark coffee had a lower antioxidant activity despite the
increase in color."
From Effect of roasting on the antioxidant activity of coffee brews.
del Castillo MD, Ames JM, Gordon MH. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Jun
19;50(13):3698-703. School of Food Biosciences, The University of
Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, UK
One more reason to go to a coffee house that uses a medium roast, rather
than going to Starbucks.
SMS
> Same with the CR study- as non-random as the sample might have been,
> there seems to be no good reason to believe why it would not be
> representative.
You could probably find a group of people that was non-representative of
the population as a whole, i.e., heavy urban users such as real estate
agents, highly mobile users with a lot of non-urban use such as
truckers, highly mobile users with mainly urban use such as airline
pilots and flight attendants, etc. It might actually be a useful metric
to know which carriers these groups favor and why.
However nothing suggests that CR subscribers are not representative of
the population as a whole. They are generally higher income, and of
higher education level, which means that they travel more, but this
makes the CR survey even more valuable, for those that are interested in
the best coverage.
I think that we all understand that it's all a sour grapes issue by
Navas. On the plus side, the digression into coffee was very interesting.
DTC
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:26:28 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <UA7Ah.875$tD2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:31:47 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>>> wrote in <no2Ah.783$x74...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> This is, of course, another wishful claim with no real foundation.
>>>> Like Extended GSM, huh?
>>> Not at all -- Extended Range GSM is real.
>> I'll rephrase that...
>>
>> Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
>
> Nope. Just my own experience.
>
> Any citations to the contrary? ;)
Sometimes you really amaze me with your logic.
DTC
> Nope. Just my own experience.
>
> Any citations to the contrary? ;)
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
SMS
> John Navas wrote:
>>> Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
>>
>> Nope. Just my own experience.
>>
>> Any citations to the contrary? ;)
>
> Sometimes you really amaze me with your logic.
Yeah, "amaze" is a good word.
Reminds me of my responses when a restaurant owner asks me how I enjoyed
the meal, and the meal was terrible:
"It was unbelievable"
"I've never tasted food like this before"
"I'm going to tell all my friends about this place"
"It's just like my mother used to make"
Notan
> DTC wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>>> Any citations of its deployment by U.S. carriers?
>>>
>>> Nope. Just my own experience.
>>>
>>> Any citations to the contrary? ;)
>>
>> Sometimes you really amaze me with your logic.
>
> Yeah, "amaze" is a good word.
>
> Reminds me of my responses when a restaurant owner asks me how I enjoyed
> the meal, and the meal was terrible:
>
> "It was unbelievable"
> "I've never tasted food like this before"
> "I'm going to tell all my friends about this place"
> "It's just like my mother used to make"
"I can't tell you how good it really was."
--
Notan
Todd Allcock
> Not good enough. 20 minutes is the limit to receive the all the
> antioxidant benefit.
To be fair, I think that as few of us coffee drinkers are doing it for
the antioxidants as red wine drinkers are! ;-)
Show me a study that says the effects of caffeine burn off in 20 minutes
and I'll stick a digital alarm on my coffeemaker right now! ;-)