On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 7/21/2014 5:17 AM, gareth wrote:
"Scott Smith" wrote in message
...
Heathkit SB-303 Receiver
Heathkit SB-303 Receiver, Excellant Cond, Covers the 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10
meter bands (plus 15 MHz rx). Nice Cond, clean inside, good solder joins,
but only recieves various tones when tuning ????, Cost new $400 plus
building time, best off over $200, call 559-255-9110 or email



April 1st was nearly 3 months ago.



Typical troll response - showing his head is once again (or still?) up
his arse.

But it's not clear what the story is on this. Elsewhere, he said he'd
just bought it, and was looking for tips on getting it working. Somewhere
else he was looking for filters for AM and CW. I thought one of the posts
was about getting it repaired, or tips on getting it going. Yet he's also
trying to sell it. Maybe he took too big a bite, buying it and then
realizing he's unable to repair it himself. But these posts are about
the same time, not a shift of thinking over time.

Michael

The SB-303 is a good receiver. I'd love to add it to my shack - but the
XYL would have a fit.


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

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

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1407211008040.10123@darkstar. example.org...

But it's not clear what the story is on this.

To me, it was very clear right from the start. Someone trying to
sell an RX from 40 years ago, now worth only £50 or less, for the
new price, and hence my comment about an April hoax.

But yes, I would also give it house room.

On 7/21/2014 10:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1407211008040.10123@darkstar. example.org...

But it's not clear what the story is on this.

To me, it was very clear right from the start. Someone trying to
sell an RX from 40 years ago, now worth only £50 or less, for the
new price, and hence my comment about an April hoax.

But yes, I would also give it house room.



Shows how little you know about the receiver. It's definitely worth at
least $200, even not working (but repairable).

But I guess since it doesn't receive 11 meters it's worthless to you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 7/21/2014 10:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1407211008040.10123@darkstar. example.org...

But it's not clear what the story is on this.
To me, it was very clear right from the start. Someone trying to
sell an RX from 40 years ago, now worth only £50 or less, for the
new price, and hence my comment about an April hoax.

But yes, I would also give it house room.

Shows how little you know about the receiver. It's definitely worth at
least $200, even not working (but repairable).
But I guess since it doesn't receive 11 meters it's worthless to you.

"Well, as suspected, your interjection into these threads owed more
to your needing attention in an infantile manner than it did to your
contributing discourse in the manner of an adult."

QED

I wasn't aware that the Federal Candy Company was still giving out CB Radio Licenses. The last time I saw a new one was around 1978!
I do have an application for a license if anyone is interested in sending the FCC $15.00 to see if they would take your money!
It seems that the cur-mongers has taken over this forum in an attempt to validate their knowledge as being gospel.
It has been my experience that this type of childish nonsense is the fuel for which morons thrive and that if you leave them to their own devices that they will wither and die on the vine.
The more fuel you ADD to the fire, the more they will prosper and attract.
But like a moth to a light bulb, sooner or later they will die and leave nothing but a rotten corpse..

On 7/21/2014 1:40 PM, Channel Jumper wrote:

I wasn't aware that the Federal C andy Company was still giving out CB
Radio Licenses. The last time I saw a new one was around 1978!
I do have an application for a license if anyone is interested in
sending the FCC $15.00 to see if they would take your money!
It seems that the cur-mongers has taken over this forum in an attempt to
validate their knowledge as being gospel.
It has been my experience that this type of childish nonsense is the
fuel for which morons thrive and that if you leave them to their own
devices that they will wither and die on the vine.
The more fuel you ADD to the fire, the more they will prosper and
attract.
But like a moth to a light bulb, sooner or later they will die and leave
nothing but a rotten corpse..





Yes, but Gareth is in the U.K. (lucky for the U.s., unlucky for the U.K).

And Gareth is a well-known troll in several U.K. newsgroups.
Unfortunately, he feels the need to show his stoopidity in this
newsgroup, also - as you can see when he insists on spewing his crap
even when someone isn't replying to him.

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

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

On 7/21/2014 11:46 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 7/21/2014 10:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1407211008040.10123@darkstar. example.org...

But it's not clear what the story is on this.
To me, it was very clear right from the start. Someone trying to
sell an RX from 40 years ago, now worth only £50 or less, for the
new price, and hence my comment about an April hoax.

But yes, I would also give it house room.

Shows how little you know about the receiver. It's definitely worth at
least $200, even not working (but repairable).
But I guess since it doesn't receive 11 meters it's worthless to you.

"Well, as suspected, your interjection into these threads owed more
to your needing attention in an infantile manner than it did to your
contributing discourse in the manner of an adult."

QED



Once again showing your stoopidity, Gareth. No wonder the judge stopped
you from wasting the court's time.

In a battle of intellects, you are defenseless.


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

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

On 7/21/2014 10:10 AM, Michael Black wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 7/21/2014 5:17 AM, gareth wrote:
"Scott Smith" wrote in message
...
Heathkit SB-303 Receiver
Heathkit SB-303 Receiver, Excellant Cond, Covers the 80, 40, 20, 15
and 10
meter bands (plus 15 MHz rx). Nice Cond, clean inside, good solder
joins,
but only recieves various tones when tuning ????, Cost new $400 plus
building time, best off over $200, call 559-255-9110 or email



April 1st was nearly 3 months ago.



Typical troll response - showing his head is once again (or still?) up
his arse.

But it's not clear what the story is on this. Elsewhere, he said he'd
just bought it, and was looking for tips on getting it working.
Somewhere else he was looking for filters for AM and CW. I thought one
of the posts was about getting it repaired, or tips on getting it
going. Yet he's also trying to sell it. Maybe he took too big a bite,
buying it and then realizing he's unable to repair it himself. But
these posts are about
the same time, not a shift of thinking over time.

Michael

The SB-303 is a good receiver. I'd love to add it to my shack - but the
XYL would have a fit.



I think it's pretty clear - he bought it, and quickly found out he bit
off more than he could chew. It doesn't have to take all that long to
figure it out.

What I've always hated are guys who think they are competent and try to
fix it themselves. Without exception they make more of a mess of it
than they started with.

Like the guy who had a broken wiper on a squelch control. It was
sticking, so he oiled it... (true story, unfortunately!). Must of been
one of Gareth's CB buddies.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
Must of been
one of Gareth's CB buddies.

"Well, as suspected, your interjection into these threads owed more
to your needing attention in an infantile manner than it did to your
contributing discourse in the manner of an adult."

QED

BTW, ITYM, "must have been", OM?

On 7/21/2014 11:45 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
Must of been
one of Gareth's CB buddies.

"Well, as suspected, your interjection into these threads owed more
to your needing attention in an infantile manner than it did to your
contributing discourse in the manner of an adult."

QED

BTW, ITYM, "must have been", OM?



Once again you show your stoopidity, Gareth. In a battle of intellects,
you are defenseless.

And yes, it is "must of been". A colloquialism - but you wouldn't
understand that, either. "Colloquialism" has more than one syllable
(and he asks "What's a syllable?").

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

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