In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
Ed Price wrote:

#snip#

As an Extra, do you really think that a ham should be surprised
to find that an arc-discharge luminary, placed in proximity to his rig,
causes RFI?

What "arc-discharge luminary"? The OP referred to a 120-volt halogen
lamp, "no transformer". The standard, commonly-available consumer
device which fits this description uses a tungsten filament in a
halogen atmosphere - it's a simple spin on an ordinary incandescent
bulb. There's no arc discharge involved in the operation of such
bulbs, and in the absence of a switching regulator or dimmer I know of
no reason why such lamps would be more likely to generate RFI than a
standard incandescent lamp.

I see nothing in the OP's query to suggest that he was referring to a
high-intensity discharge bulb, which would require a ballast of some
sort and which could certainly generate RF.

Your functional competence in communicating within Usenet is also deficient,
as you sent a redundant copy of your post to my personal address. Please try
to learn the difference between replying to a post in a newsgroup and
replying to the poster's address (especially when the poster affords you the
courtesy of a non-spoofed address).

In defense of the gentleman to whom you are responding, I would point
out that the convention of "post a reply to the public newsgroup or
mailing list, and send a courtesy copy to the individual's mailbox"
has been in use on the Internet for at least 15 years, and probably
more. Some people like receiving courtesy copies, some dislike it,
and I agree that one should respect the individual recipient's choice
when it is known.

I do not agree that the poster was out of line or "deficient" in
sending you a courtesy copy of his posting.

For what it's worth, Ed, my own immediate reaction to several of your
postings was to conclude that they were unnecessarily contemptuous. I
think that your advice would be more successfully received, and thus
more effective, if it were delivered in a tone which was, shall we
say, less snotty?

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Leonard Martin" resurrecting an old thread
In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote:



I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...

Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.

Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
truly unlucky persons, your employees.

Leonard

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

Jack Painter

When you are reduced to dragging out your degrees, licences, results of your
last "IQ Examination", results from your three-day observation, etc...

.... at that time, you have already lost the argument... you are in denial
and just haven't accepted that fact yet...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:BCche.4839$It1.518@lakeread02...
|
| "Leonard Martin" resurrecting an old thread
| In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
| "Ed Price" wrote:
|
|
|
| I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...
|
| Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
| us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
| routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
| interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.
|
| Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
| your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
| truly unlucky persons, your employees.
|
| Leonard
|
| --
| "Everything that rises must converge"
| --Flannery O'Connor
|
| Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
misunderstood
| his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
PhD's
| of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
| the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
| wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
| imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
| problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
been
| a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
| have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
| place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
about
| achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.
|
| Jack Painter
|
|

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote:



I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...

Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.

Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
truly unlucky persons, your employees.

Leonard



Whoa Lenny, this is so old you must have been buried really deep! (In what,
I have no idea.)

Maybe I'm using too many big words for you, but I doubt it. You really seem
to have a problem with social interaction, but this group isn't the proper
forum to resolve those issues. However, I'll recap the situation, and maybe
you might be able to sort out your feelings along the way.

The thread had been talking about understanding RF propagation and the
concept of interference. Now, if you brought that subject up to 100 random
people on the street, would you expect them all to be "equals"? If that same
question were posed in an "antennas" group, would you have an expectation
that these people would be slightly more informed about the subject? How
about if you posed that question to a group of hams (people who have
voluntarily sought out a technical hobby and who have even passed
examinations on the technical content of that endeavor)?

It should be clear that, while it's nice to be courteous, we are not all
equals. BTW, my dog doesn't think you're her equal either, although she does
concede to recognize you to the extent that she has blocked your address on
her email account. Hey, what can I say, the dog has high standards.

I'm sorry to hear about all the people you have to "put up with." But as
Sgt. Stryker once said, "Life is tough; it's even tougher when you're
stupid."


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.


Well, I already apologized for sounding stuffy, but I can do it again. I'll
probably commit that offense again some time, so I better keep my
apologizing muscle well toned. It's sad when a hobby committed to
communication holds precision of expression to be stuffy. And anyone who can
drop the Latin "per se" correctly into a sentence is wise enough to not
misunderstand my usage of "hold."

So I guess I should have dumbed-down my assertion, perhaps saying that I
reckon a ham ought to be a whole bunch more smarter about RF noise than your
average hamster. And, as the OP claimed a lot of years experience, shouldn't
I expect that he learned even more along the way? Is that too much to
expect?

Maybe you hit the real crux of my effront when you say I "was lecturing
others with an authority not recognized." So, by putting some slang and
twang into my prose, can I slip under the definition of a lecture? And as to
my authority, I never drag out the certificates or flash my badge. I try to
speak as plainly as I can, and hope the content has the ring of truth. I
expect those I post to will be able to recognize my thoughts, judge them
accordingly, and realize that I'm the smartest snot they ever met. (g
explicitely added for the humor-impared) I'd never presume to advise on
things like phase-locked loops or digital modulation, of which my knowledge
is woefully deficient. OK, just this once; I've been doing RF noise
(reduction, prevention and creation) for about 37 years. Go ahead, qrz me
and you'll see I'm an old fart. And I always sign my comments, Mister (oh, I
guess you don't do that).

--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

I just hate it when they turn out to be nice guys and apologize (whether or
not they have anything to apologize for).... then ya gotta be nice to
'em!grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
If "God"--expecting an angel... if evolution--expecting an alien... just
wondering if I will be able to tell the difference!

"Ed Price" wrote in message
newsGzhe.6145$eU.3521@fed1read07...
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
| wrote:
|
| Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
| misunderstood
| his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
| PhD's
| of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities,
then
| the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
| wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
| imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
| problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
| been
| a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man;
to
| have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a
wicked
| place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
| about
| achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.
|
| I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
| se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
| pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
| or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
| someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.
|
|
| Well, I already apologized for sounding stuffy, but I can do it again.
I'll
| probably commit that offense again some time, so I better keep my
| apologizing muscle well toned. It's sad when a hobby committed to
| communication holds precision of expression to be stuffy. And anyone who
can
| drop the Latin "per se" correctly into a sentence is wise enough to not
| misunderstand my usage of "hold."
|
| So I guess I should have dumbed-down my assertion, perhaps saying that I
| reckon a ham ought to be a whole bunch more smarter about RF noise than
your
| average hamster. And, as the OP claimed a lot of years experience,
shouldn't
| I expect that he learned even more along the way? Is that too much to
| expect?
|
| Maybe you hit the real crux of my effront when you say I "was lecturing
| others with an authority not recognized." So, by putting some slang and
| twang into my prose, can I slip under the definition of a lecture? And as
to
| my authority, I never drag out the certificates or flash my badge. I try
to
| speak as plainly as I can, and hope the content has the ring of truth. I
| expect those I post to will be able to recognize my thoughts, judge them
| accordingly, and realize that I'm the smartest snot they ever met. (g
| explicitely added for the humor-impared) I'd never presume to advise on
| things like phase-locked loops or digital modulation, of which my
knowledge
| is woefully deficient. OK, just this once; I've been doing RF noise
| (reduction, prevention and creation) for about 37 years. Go ahead, qrz me
| and you'll see I'm an old fart. And I always sign my comments, Mister (oh,
I
| guess you don't do that).
|
| --
| Ed
| WB6WSN
| El Cajon, CA USA
|
|