"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote:

: In uk.radio.amateur ZZZPK .es.it.net wrote:
: oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.
:
: so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
: been a waste of time
:
: Oi - who you callin' a Merkun?

oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:44:31 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:
oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.
Is that a chemistry set, or an erector set? Or set to your partner?

Richard Clark wrote:

: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:44:31 GMT,
: (ZZZPK)
: wrote:
: oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.
: Is that a chemistry set, or an erector set? Or set to your partner?

no ...


dancing.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:35:21 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

Or set to your partner?
no ...

dancing.
That IS a dancing term. The question is in what proportion is it to
antennas?

Richard Clark wrote:

: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:35:21 GMT,
: (ZZZPK)
: wrote:
:
: Or set to your partner?
: no ...
:
: dancing.
: That IS a dancing term. The question is in what proportion is it to
: antennas?

oh... set dancing is very much related to antennas.

you can have a set of 4, 6, 8 or more
all or some dancing together (driven in phase)
or all dancing to a slighly different pattern (out of phase)

some dancers were BOOTS...others dance BAREFOOT (10-4)


the proportion is as you like it, just depends how distant your
observation is....and of course how lacking one's understanding of
set theory is.