|
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. -- Rick |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good nature. Thanks for helping me learn. :) -- Rick |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good nature. Thanks for helping me learn. :) No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm not wasting more of my time on you. And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the contents. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good nature. Thanks for helping me learn. :) No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm not wasting more of my time on you. And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the contents. I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I didn't say. Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits) that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness. So sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the digits is. One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do. -- Rick |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/27/2015 3:35 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good nature. Thanks for helping me learn. :) No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm not wasting more of my time on you. And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the contents. I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I didn't say. Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits) that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness. So sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the digits is. One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do. I'm just correcting you where you're wrong. It's not for your benefit - it's so the rest of the people in the newsgroup don't get the wrong ideas. Whether YOU accept them or not is of no matter to me. But I have to once again correct you on what you said. Me: Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is "unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor recreation of the original signal. You: That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to mention that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove* anything from the signal. It is a form of compression that simply can't reproduce the signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is your value judgement. Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very much like the original. The compression removes data from the signal during the compression. That is why the signal cannot be recreated exactly. And the term "poor" is used by all experts in the field. Did you even bother to read the reference where no less than Neil Young and (the late) Steve Jobs talked about how bad it is? But no - you won't admit you're wrong here, either. I'm not having any problems with any of the concepts. But you sure do. And you refuse to admit you're wrong. As for the "personal attacks" - just calling a spade a spade. Nothing more, nothing less. And I really don't care if the truth hurts you or not. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 2/27/2015 4:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/27/2015 3:35 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/27/2015 8:26 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 9:42 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:55 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 8:41 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 5:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote: On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding. I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker. http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560 http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one company's products? If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these chipsets are hi-def (1080). And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company providing the chipsets. The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264. "The BCM3560 combines a cable/terrestrial 4/1024 QAM and 8/16-VSB receiver, an out-of-band QPSK receiver, NTSC demodulator, DVI/HDMI receiver, a transport processor, a digital audio processor, a high-definition (HD) MPEG video decoder, 2D graphics processing, digital processing of analog video and audio, analog video digitizer and DAC functions, stereo high-fidelity audio DACs, a 250-MHz MIPS processor, and a peripheral control unit providing a variety of television control functions." I am happy to admit I don't know everything about digital TV. But I do know a ridiculous statement when I see it. "But in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company, so all TV's have similar decoding." qualifies as a ridiculous statement. No one in the industry would have allowed the FCC to entrench one company as the sole manufacturer of decoder chips for digital TV. BTW, you are right that MPEG-2 is not H.264. It's just not relevant. They are both used for digital TV. No, you don't know a "ridiculous statement when you see it". You have proven multiple times you don't even know your arse from a hole in the ground. You really should stick with things you know something about. Maybe eventually you can figure out what those things are. This is why it is so much fun discussing things with you, your professional demeanor, your courteous style and you all around good nature. Thanks for helping me learn. :) No, you repeatedly argue about things you know nothing about. Your claims that mp3 is not a lossy format and white noise exists in this thread are perfect examples. And you never admit you were wrong. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And I'm not wasting more of my time on you. And BTW - "pi" is not a compression. It is a representation used by agreement. Someone who does not know the meaning of "pi" cannot discern the number. OTOH, the person need know nothing about a compressed file or signal other than the means required to expand it to recover the contents. I never said MP3 is not lossy. I can't be wrong about something I didn't say. Actually, pi is the word for a number which has unique properties which define its value. You only need to convey the concept using a finite amount of data and it can produce an infinite string of digits (or bits) that have no repeating pattern and have the properties of randomness. So sure, "pi" is not compression, but the algorithm for producing the digits is. One sure sign that you are having trouble with these concepts is the way you attack me on a personal level. You can say my ideas are wrong, or even silly, but you insist in being rude. I would be only too happy if you didn't respond to any of my posts... but you do. I'm just correcting you where you're wrong. It's not for your benefit - it's so the rest of the people in the newsgroup don't get the wrong ideas. Whether YOU accept them or not is of no matter to me. But I have to once again correct you on what you said. Me: Some compression algorithms (i.e. mp3) remove what they consider is "unimportant". However, the result after decompressing is a poor recreation of the original signal. You: That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to mention that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove* anything from the signal. It is a form of compression that simply can't reproduce the signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is your value judgement. Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very much like the original. The compression removes data from the signal during the compression. That is why the signal cannot be recreated exactly. And the term "poor" is used by all experts in the field. Did you even bother to read the reference where no less than Neil Young and (the late) Steve Jobs talked about how bad it is? But no - you won't admit you're wrong here, either. I'm not having any problems with any of the concepts. But you sure do. And you refuse to admit you're wrong. As for the "personal attacks" - just calling a spade a spade. Nothing more, nothing less. And I really don't care if the truth hurts you or not. Indeed. I find you amusing most of the time, especially your inability to resist the urge to continue this discussion. You clearly hate hearing anything from me. So why continue to post? Ok, which data is "removed" from the signal in MP3 compression? -- Rick |
What is the point of digital voice?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... PI is irrational number ie it cannot be expressed as one integer divided by another and give either a terminating or recurring decimal. It's major property is that it is transcendental |
What is the point of digital voice?
On 26/02/2015 16:14, Custos Custodum wrote:
AndyW wrote in news:54eee0a5$0$17091$862e30e2 @ngroups.net: On 25/02/2015 19:08, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote: But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK he was quoting from. Time for a drinK Thanks very much. Kind of you to offer. Mine's a nice bitter, maybe a Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted if they have it. Good call! Deuchars IPA is also very popular "apud Custodum". Good call. I'll email you one over, just pop a pint glass under your USB (Universal Shipping for Beer) port while opening the email. Andy |
What is the point of digital voice?
"AndyW" wrote in message
... On 26/02/2015 16:14, Custos Custodum wrote: AndyW wrote in : On 25/02/2015 19:08, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote: But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK he was quoting from. Time for a drinK Thanks very much. Kind of you to offer. Mine's a nice bitter, maybe a Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted if they have it. Good call! Deuchars IPA is also very popular "apud Custodum". Good call. I'll email you one over, just pop a pint glass under your USB (Universal Shipping for Beer) port while opening the email. So THAT'S where the pool of beer on the floor under my PC is coming from! No wonder my dog is always ****ed! -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com