Careful, OM, your true motivation is showing through, and
once again it's not the pursuit of technical excellence, it
is a desire to do a Childish Broadcast (CB).

Grow up.

"decide who is correct"? Since when was this topic one
of your childish sneering contests?

Stupid boy.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
I've no doubt you will respond with 'rubbish' etc. but I invite the others
on the NG to look up the term and decide who is correct.

Whereas your explanation offers further information (it was
an in-joke at the time to state that the derivation came from
the Plessey company, rather than from the Greco prefix, "Plesio"
meaning "nearly" as you say (also used in, "Plesiosaur", nearly a
lizard)), it does not give the lie to what I said, despite your
childish desperation to claim that it does.

There was a single master oscillator AIUI, but when service
finally came into exchanges via different links, it would result
in many phases of the frame dependant upon the route
by which signals had transited through the network, each link
being subject to frame slip, as you state.

The links were configured such that one end was the master
clock, and as such gave rise to a single master oscillator at
some point in the network. My memory may be in error on this
matter, but I am only human, I have never claimed omniscience
and it is 8 or 9 years since I worked on such system. No doubt
this will pass you by, and we can expect your usual childish broadcast
(CB) sneering at some minor error. How is it ever possible to
hold a technical discussion with you when you exhibit such a
personality defect, OM?

Why do you have to turn every technical discussion into
a ****ing contest? Are you that desperate to save the face that
you have undoubtedly lost by being a proponent of the
M3/CB Fool's Licence? You would certainly seem to be one
of the fools for whom the licence was intended.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
ISTR that the Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy of BT ran
via a single master oscillator.
Plesiochronous refers to a system with signals having a common data rate
(within defined limits) which are sychronised to different clocks.
Sometimes
referred tp as 'nearly synchronised'.
ie no 'master clock', with or without a remontoire ;-).
In a plesiochronous switched data system, the signals may be synchronised
at a given instant permitting switching withourt loss of frames but, when
the signals drift apart, the switches must compensate by a process known
as
'frame slip'- not required in a system synchronised to a master
oscillator.
I've no doubt you will respond with 'rubbish' etc. but I invite the others
on the NG to look up the term and decide who is correct.

Whereas your explanation offers further information (it was
an in-joke at the time to state that the derivation came from
the Plessey company, rather than from the Greco prefix, "Plesio"
meaning "nearly" as you say (also used in, "Plesiosaur", nearly a
lizard)), it does not give the lie to what I said, despite your
childish desperation to claim that it does.

There was a single master oscillator AIUI, but when service
finally came into exchanges via different links, it would result
in many phases of the frame dependant upon the route
by which signals had transited through the network, each link
being subject to frame slip, as you state.

The links were configured such that one end was the master
clock, and as such gave rise to a single master oscillator at
some point in the network. My memory may be in error on this
matter, but I am only human, I have never claimed omniscience
and it is 8 or 9 years since I worked on such system. No doubt
this will pass you by, and we can expect your usual childish broadcast
(CB) sneering at some minor error. How is it ever possible to
hold a technical discussion with you when you exhibit such a
personality defect, OM?

Why do you have to turn every technical discussion into
a ****ing contest? Are you that desperate to save the face that
you have undoubtedly lost by being a proponent of the
M3/CB Fool's Licence? You would certainly seem to be one
of the fools for whom the licence was intended.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
ISTR that the Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy of BT ran
via a single master oscillator.
Plesiochronous refers to a system with signals having a common data rate
(within defined limits) which are sychronised to different clocks.
Sometimes
referred tp as 'nearly synchronised'.
ie no 'master clock', with or without a remontoire ;-).
In a plesiochronous switched data system, the signals may be synchronised
at a given instant permitting switching withourt loss of frames but, when
the signals drift apart, the switches must compensate by a process known
as
'frame slip'- not required in a system synchronised to a master
oscillator.
I've no doubt you will respond with 'rubbish' etc. but I invite the others
on the NG to look up the term and decide who is correct.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Careful, OM, your true motivation is showing through, and
once again it's not the pursuit of technical excellence, it
is a desire to do a Childish Broadcast (CB).

Grow up.

"decide who is correct"? Since when was this topic one
of your childish sneering contests?


There was no 'sneering' - merely an attempt, which seems to have worked, to
limit you from responding a tirade of pointless and abuse posts.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Careful, OM, your true motivation is showing through, and
once again it's not the pursuit of technical excellence, it
is a desire to do a Childish Broadcast (CB).

Grow up.

"decide who is correct"? Since when was this topic one
of your childish sneering contests?


There was no 'sneering' - merely an attempt, which seems to have worked, to
limit you from responding a tirade of pointless and abuse posts.

You're in a world of make-believe. (Make-believe that the
M3/CB is a Ham licence, perhaps?) I have not behaved in the
way that you accuse. I have merely responded to defend myself
against your gratuitous and somewhat childish outbursts.

You seem to be more and more desperate to save the
face that you have undoubtedly lost by your support for
the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB licence,
and you are increasingly making it up as you go along. Yesterday
you sneered that I would not have the strength of character to
express my view points face-to-face; yet you've never met
me and you therefore do not know that my viewpoints
are the same whether in speech or in Usenet. You have no
basis for such a gratuitous and childish sneer. You accuse
me of diverting attention away from points in discussion, but
it is you who is creating silly diversions with your straw men.

Take your battles to "prove" that I am always wrong - I foster
technical discussion based upon the things that I am interested in
and the things that I have done. It seems that each time I come up
with a new topic, you rush off to a reference somewhere to prove
me wrong; the style of what you produce when you do that is very
much that of a quotation from a reference site and not the plethora
of grammatical and syntactical errors that is your norm that would result
from a demonstration that your knowledge is better then mine. The
conclusion to this is obvious - as a typical M3/CBer, you
have widespread ignorance and can only prolong these battles
by quoting a reference - evidence of your ignorance, and evidence
that the battle that you engender to "prove" me wrong leaves you
as the loser through ignorance.

You really are a prize chump.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Careful, OM, your true motivation is showing through, and
once again it's not the pursuit of technical excellence, it
is a desire to do a Childish Broadcast (CB).
Grow up.
"decide who is correct"? Since when was this topic one
of your childish sneering contests?
There was no 'sneering' - merely an attempt, which seems to have worked,
to
limit you from responding a tirade of pointless and abuse posts.

You're in a world of make-believe. (Make-believe that the
M3/CB is a Ham licence, perhaps?) I have not behaved in the
way that you accuse. I have merely responded to defend myself
against your gratuitous and somewhat childish outbursts.

You seem to be more and more desperate to save the
face that you have undoubtedly lost by your support for
the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB licence,
and you are increasingly making it up as you go along. Yesterday
you sneered that I would not have the strength of character to
express my view points face-to-face; yet you've never met
me and you therefore do not know that my viewpoints
are the same whether in speech or in Usenet. You have no
basis for such a gratuitous and childish sneer. You accuse
me of diverting attention away from points in discussion, but
it is you who is creating silly diversions with your straw men.

Take your battles to "prove" that I am always wrong - I foster
technical discussion based upon the things that I am interested in
and the things that I have done. It seems that each time I come up
with a new topic, you rush off to a reference somewhere to prove
me wrong; the style of what you produce when you do that is very
much that of a quotation from a reference site and not the plethora
of grammatical and syntactical errors that is your norm that would result
from a demonstration that your knowledge is better then mine. The
conclusion to this is obvious - as a typical M3/CBer, you
have widespread ignorance and can only prolong these battles
by quoting a reference - evidence of your ignorance, and evidence
that the battle that you engender to "prove" me wrong leaves you
as the loser through ignorance.

You really are a prize chump.

Brian Reay wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Careful, OM, your true motivation is showing through, and
once again it's not the pursuit of technical excellence, it
is a desire to do a Childish Broadcast (CB).
Grow up.
"decide who is correct"? Since when was this topic one
of your childish sneering contests?
There was no 'sneering' - merely an attempt, which seems to have worked,
to
limit you from responding a tirade of pointless and abuse posts.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Whereas your explanation offers further information (it was
an in-joke at the time to state that the derivation came from
the Plessey company, rather than from the Greco prefix, "Plesio"
meaning "nearly" as you say (also used in, "Plesiosaur", nearly a
lizard)), it does not give the lie to what I said, despite your
childish desperation to claim that it does.

There was a single master oscillator AIUI, but when service
finally came into exchanges via different links, it would result
in many phases of the frame dependant upon the route
by which signals had transited through the network, each link
being subject to frame slip, as you state.

The links were configured such that one end was the master
clock, and as such gave rise to a single master oscillator at
some point in the network. My memory may be in error on this
matter, but I am only human, I have never claimed omniscience
and it is 8 or 9 years since I worked on such system. No doubt
this will pass you by, and we can expect your usual childish broadcast
(CB) sneering at some minor error. How is it ever possible to
hold a technical discussion with you when you exhibit such a
personality defect, OM?

Why do you have to turn every technical discussion into
a ****ing contest?
Childish Banter?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/03

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Whereas your explanation offers further information (it was
an in-joke at the time to state that the derivation came from
the Plessey company, rather than from the Greco prefix, "Plesio"
meaning "nearly" as you say (also used in, "Plesiosaur", nearly a
lizard)), it does not give the lie to what I said, despite your
childish desperation to claim that it does.

There was a single master oscillator AIUI, but when service
finally came into exchanges via different links, it would result
in many phases of the frame dependant upon the route
by which signals had transited through the network, each link
being subject to frame slip, as you state.

The links were configured such that one end was the master
clock, and as such gave rise to a single master oscillator at
some point in the network. My memory may be in error on this
matter, but I am only human, I have never claimed omniscience
and it is 8 or 9 years since I worked on such system. No doubt
this will pass you by, and we can expect your usual childish broadcast
(CB) sneering at some minor error. How is it ever possible to
hold a technical discussion with you when you exhibit such a
personality defect, OM?

Why do you have to turn every technical discussion into
a ****ing contest?
Childish Banter?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/03