"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.



Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.

But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.



Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.

But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in
uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the
Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour
at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

On 8/25/2013 10:52 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.



Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.

But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in
uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the
Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour
at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head.


ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

Steve, have you really lost the plot? The 'old RAE' WAS a rigorous exam
(but maybe not as daunting as the Dreaded Morse Test).
--
Ian

Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

!
"current, rigorous Full Licence exam" !??!!??!!!..ha ha ha ho ho


"********" he is worth a dozen of you and so is his RAE pass .........

In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

--

Percy Picacity

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

If his certificate is 40 years old he will have passed the old written exam
and not the current multiple choice paper. Have you seen any of the question
papers from that era?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk