Re: wired vs wireless ? nevermind

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"- Bobb -" <bobb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:esednXIlSNJfVYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sorry, I had checked in my newsreader (OE) and it didn't go back years
> so didn't find a recent answer : just lots of dated "he said" /"she
> said". I thought perhaps it had  been resolved by now. I checked google
> as you said and only found what looked like ongoing battles ending in
> statements like:
>
> "Take 2 more little yellow pills and send me 5 bucks in the morning you
> moron. "
>
> So I guess I'll go wired - thanks.

Good choice! You had the answer all along.


> "Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:qAESg.13495$v%4.3227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "G. Morgan" <alarmpro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:3imlh29ge5dvi65aapdauitfstjt1nobg1@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:11:11 -0400, "- Bobb -" <bobb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>How about wired vs wireless ?
> >>>Wouldn't wireless be subject to jamming / interference ?
> >>>Opinions either way - Good points vs bad ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Google this group for "wired vs wireless" and "wireless jamming
> >> interference".  You'll quickly see the horse has been thoroughly
> >> beaten.
> >>
> >>
> > you just can't kill it... it keeps coming back like Freddie Krugger
> > :-))
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Graham
> >> (remove the double e's to email)
> >
> >
>