"AC you need to learn to read." I learned in 1978, when did you? You responded to a criticism aimed at a group, my 'you' was in response to your 'we'. As I previously suggested, comprehension is the issue here, illustrated beautifully by your not knowing the difference between design flaw and build quality.
"You'll probably take that as an insult or something" No, I have thicker skin than that.
"but go ahead and read my posts in this discussion and you'll see I haven't called anyone any names, nor used insulting terminology (veiled or otherwise)" Point taken. Again, my response was initially to the group.
"I have simply pointed out the same thing that others have noticed; the statistics are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the quantities of iPhone repairs that are handled directly by Apple." That is a factor, but I question if your claims impede the results with any degree of significance.
"In addition the report groups together entire brands of phone, instead of offering a break-down (excuse the pun) of individual models as it does for the iPhone." It separates the iPhone 4 from the 3G/3Gs models. The separation doesn't significantly alter the outcome of the survey. Aggregating the iPhone scores would very possibly lead to a better result for the iPhone. Conversely separating the other brands handsets would possibly make things seem worse for the other handset manufacturers. The data as it has been represented seems sound; it simply shows something that you don't agree with.
"I hate repeating myself..." I don't know who you think you are but 'I don't like repeating myself'? Really? ODFO...
"...but you clearly demonstrated that you don't read by claiming I was calling names and being insulting when there isn't a shred of a post I've made in this discussion that allows you to draw such a conclusion." For someone that claims to not liking self-repetition, you are labouring the point somewhat.
"It's a shame you feel the need to hide behind the AC moniker, I'm sure if you were to post under your usual name on this site then you would be a little less dramatical and demonstrate significantly more reason." Rubbish. User name has nothing to do with it and using a 'handle' or just a first given name is tantamount to being AC IMHO. Would you be as supercilious face to face? I doubt it. The word is 'dramatic', by the way, and 'melodramatic' would be a better choice. I wasn't by the way. I wasn't unreasonable either, I merely offered a cogent counter point to your views, which you clearly don't like and instead of pointing out why the statistics are flawed (no, IMHO your reasons aren't valid) you choose to ridicule and have the temerity to assert that I am being melodramatic! No really, way to prove me wrong!