Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
No. It's called 'go see for yourself and tell me based on YOUR
judgement if it's worth revisiting'. If all I wanted was a pat on the
head I wouldn't even have provided a link. Either that info has
technical merit, or it doesn't in which case perhaps you should berate
THEM and not me!
Of course it has no technical merit, it is just words! Some of them are
pretty ambiguous too, like that "video Frequencies" bit. Are the video
frequencies they refer to The frequencies that television signals are
broadcast or are tehy the frequencies that a video signal uses. THere is
a difference.

There's more. From that paragraph above, your not asking us to do your
research for you, are you?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


It's not that bad. I've seen far worse. And no, I'm not asking you or anyone
else to do anything. When I'm not checking here and replying I'm reading
other stuff. I'll doing more of that because it doesn't argue so much.

It's much better to see numbers than what some website is telling you.
There are a lot of really smart people in here, and yes, if you do
something that isn't right, you're going to hear about it.

I thiink you'll find that these sites that don't argure with you are
happy when you buy something from them. But it's your call.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -