G.A.Evans G4SDW wrote:
I have long suspected that "Smiffy" is the name by which
Mr.Nugatory posts when at school, with carefully checked
spelling to put us all off the scent.

I'll take the comment on my spieling chequer as a complement :-)


The times of posting by "Smiffy" since appearing last November
are commensurate with that of a school-teacher.

Both the subject matter and also the style of language, (in
particular the condescending manner of an arrogant and
deficient personality), in the below are so similar to that
of Mr.Nugatory, that I am now convinced that "Smiffy" is,
indeed, none other than our very own Mr.Nugatory, M3OSN!

Sorry, not even close (spatially, politically or employment wise)


What better way after running away and hiding to sneak
back in under an assumed ID?!

I posted a helpful reply, with some useful suggestions and a request for
more information about your technical and project management
expectations. This is _your_ project, how do you envisage it working
technically, how will you raise enthusiasm from volunteers and and how
will the project be run?

Those are serious questions, that anyone interested in collaborating
with you would want an answer to. You are asking for potentially a lot
of investment in time from others, which many would freely give if you
can show that you too have the commitment to follow through. At the
moment I see nothing more than the glimmer of a potentially great idea
from you. Will you drive it forward to a successful conclusion, or will
you let it drop complaining that no-one would help yet rejecting any
suggestions you get?

Why not re-read my words below in a calm manner? They were not written
in any kind of vindictive or spiteful manner, they are purely intended
as constructive suggestions from someone who has worked on many
collaborative projects involving people who live far apart.


"Smiffy" Smiffy@?.? wrote in message ...
wrote:
Is anybody interested in such a project and prepared
to join with _REALISTIC_ non-nugatory support?
I am sure that many people would be happy to join in the project, once
they see that you are serious about it and have a good idea of the scope
that you intend. Why not sketch out some rough ideas, block diagrams
suggesting which biscuits would be needed initially (ideally I'd guess
some building blocks which could be useful in their own right - e.g.
VFO, amplifiers etc.), together with a proposal for how they should
connect together - some kind of standardised backplane, a connector
stack arrangement similar in concept to PC/104
(http://www.pc104.org/technology/PDF/...ec%20v2_5.pdf), something
different entirely?

What are you really thinking of here? Is it as simple as "every biscuit
shall be either a Xcm * Ycm, or half sized X/2cm * Ycm" and allow free
reign on electrical interfaces, or try to work out some kind of standard
for general interface levels and protocols between biscuits?

How do you envision the project being managed? What kind of
collaboration methods would you use?

The idea is sound, but to spark enthusiasm perhaps you should offer a
little more than "Hey guys, let's build a radio". Collaborative projects
either need a strong lead or a good previous track record of similar
work. Even then take time to get going until people can see where you
are heading and that they agree with it and feel they can be a useful
part of the project. Throw some basics together, put a bit of flesh on
your proposal, and I'm sure you'll get more people interested. It may
well end up being you doing it on your own until the first biscuits are
designed, but then it should gain momentum. Regularly publish what you
are doing and where you are up to; a simple technical report and
ignoring those who would shout you down (or a simple technical response,
not falling down to "stupid boy" name calling) should gain you support.