|
Yaesu rises again!?
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. |
Yaesu rises again!?
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay
writes On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf DIJ -- Brian Howie |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 01/12/2014 08:10, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay writes On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf Interesting ... I was referring to the FT-200, and I believe the FT-101E and its derivatives have a similar mixing arrangements, though with different combinations of VFO and pre-mix frequencies. I suspect the FT-200 would be impossible to mod for 60m, as the required frequencies are in the middle of its VFO coverage. Are there any mods out there for the other 70s vintage FTs? |
Yaesu rises again!?
In message , Brian Howie
writes In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay writes On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf I've only had a quick look, but it looks like the first IF is a fixed 5.520 to 6.020MHz (wideband bandpass filter) - ie a sort-of roofing filter, and not tuneable. -- Ian |
Yaesu rises again!?
In message , Ian Jackson
writes In message , Brian Howie writes In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay writes On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf I've only had a quick look, but it looks like the first IF is a fixed 5.520 to 6.020MHz (wideband bandpass filter) - ie a sort-of roofing filter, and not tuneable. Yes it's wideband but the vfo is 9MHz and together with thie 3MHz IF selects the frequency within the pass-band . 9-3 =6 -- Brian Howie |
Yaesu rises again!?
In message
, Brian Reay writes Brian Howie wrote: In message , Jeefaw K. Effkay writes On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf DIJ So it still doesn't cover 60m. As for side bands being the wrong way around, a popular misconception. As I recall it came up a few months back and was discussed at some length. Jeff explained it rather well, as I recall. VFO is 8.7to 9.2 and 2nd IF is 3. 180 Quick and dirty sum. VF0 is set to 9 Carrier is 3MHZ tone is 1KHz USB is 3.001 LSB is 2.999 9-3 = 6 1KHz tone USB 9-3.001 = 5.999 LSB in IF LSB 9-.2.9.999 = 6.001 USB in IF So the sidebands are reversed in tunable IF for 14MHz conversion crystal is about 20MHz , when the tunable IF is subtracted, the sidebands are the right way round again. Other rigs are probably different. Yes and this one doesn't cover 60m.Enthusiasts might want to try it for different Yaesu rigs. The FT101 looks the same. Some with the 9MHz IF might work out differently. Brian -- Brian Howie |
Yaesu rises again!?
"gareth" wrote in message
... Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an Xtal controlled treansverter. |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... "Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote: On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew, and the hobby in general make such an error? Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person derides him without mercy. Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was evidence needed for retesting Full licence holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing Fulls. Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice little earner" not to be implemented. -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
Yaesu rises again!?
"gareth" wrote in message
... "gareth" wrote in message ... Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an Xtal controlled treansverter. As it happens, I have the VFO, XTAL filter and carrier Xtals from a scrapped one of those, and had recently measured the vfo spread with a view to making a single-bandeer out of it. Bearing in mind the rather silly and infantile abusive post from a certain quarter, does that post suggest that OfCom should consider retesting all those Class Bers who downgraded to a Fools' Licence because that very downgrading implied only the technical competence of a Fools' Licensee? Hoist by his own petard, what goes around comes around, or people who live in glass houses, etc? |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Brian Howie" wrote in message
... My FT560 has a tunable IF of 5.520 to 6.020MHz IF is 3.180MHz -sidebands would be the wrong way round . http://www.radiomanual.info/schemi/FTdx560_user.pdf Interesting, for I had always understood the Sommerkamp 747 to be a rebadged FTDX560, but it's tunable IF / VFO coverage / transverter Xtals are 300 kHz different***** and it did not have the noise blanker option. Otherwise, a piecemeal examination of the 560's cct diagram against the 747's cct diagram to hand here makes then appear to be identical. ***** Thus giving the 60m coverage and so making the gratuitous abuser from a certain quarter look to be a babbling fool. |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote:
The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed. The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in Basic English, it would appear. -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Spike" wrote in message
... On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote: The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed. The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in Basic English, it would appear. What was that, that Reay was saying only recently about cross-posting malicious abuse? |
Yaesu rises again!?
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:00:37 +0000, gareth wrote:
What was that, that Reay was saying only recently about cross-posting malicious abuse? I believe he said that he was all in favour of it, and he applauded your heroic efforts in the field. HTH |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote: On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew, and the hobby in general make such an error? Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person derides him without mercy. Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was evidence needed for retesting Full licence holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing Fulls. Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice little earner" not to be implemented. The same could be said of any retesting regime Frank. The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. After all, they can run 400W, operate maritime mobile etc. and thus the potential for serious issues is far greater if they don't know what they are doing. The argument seems to go a step or two further than simply re-testing, and that is to examine the knowledge or otherwise of new techniques. Take DSP as an example. I've never used it, and am not interested in ever using it. Why should I be tested to see if I know how it works, and when it is discovered that I know bog all about it and care even less, why should I lose the ability to use the modes I've used over the past 48 years? -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 01/12/14 21:14, Brian Reay wrote:
Spike wrote: On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote: The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed. The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in Basic English, it would appear. Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather than address the matter raised. Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather than address the matter raised. -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
Yaesu rises again!?
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote: On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote: Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz. How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew, and the hobby in general make such an error? Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person derides him without mercy. Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was evidence needed for retesting Full licence holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing Fulls. Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice little earner" not to be implemented. The same could be said of any retesting regime Frank. The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. After all, they can run 400W, operate maritime mobile etc. and thus the potential for serious issues is far greater if they don't know what they are doing. The argument seems to go a step or two further than simply re-testing, and that is to examine the knowledge or otherwise of new techniques. Take DSP as an example. I've never used it, and am not interested in ever using it. Why should I be tested to see if I know how it works, and when it is discovered that I know bog all about it and care even less, why should I lose the ability to use the modes I've used over the past 48 years? The point is Frank, those calling for the retesting of newcomers all to often seem to be far from competent themselves. Moreover, they expect others to show progress yet don't seem to have even maintained the knowledge the supposedly had at the time of their exam. Equally, those who call anyone using commercial kit CBers, tend to have a collection of commercial kit themselves. Not to mention a history of having used CB themselves, possibly more than those they attack. If there is a case for enforcing progress for one group of licensees then there is a case for all. Of course, by and large those calling for enforcing progress for newcomers or even just retesting are merely being vindictive. They also fear enforced progress for themselves as they know they would fail. |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Spike" wrote in message
... On 01/12/14 21:14, Brian Reay wrote: Spike wrote: On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote: The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence holders on here, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed. The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in Basic English, it would appear. Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather than address the matter raised. Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather than address the matter raised. Indeed. The matter raised was using the tunable IF in older transceivers. |
Yaesu rises again!?
|
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/1/2014 9:41 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Why can't we all just get along? Is that a derision of some pollyanna-ish desire for things to be better? If so it derves contempt. Just because things aren't perfect, is no excuse to wish for hell. Man, what have you been smoking? -- Rick |
Yaesu rises again!?
In rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Why can't we all just get along? Is that a derision of some pollyanna-ish desire for things to be better? If so it derves contempt. Just because things aren't perfect, is no excuse to wish for hell. That kin of disproportinality prevai;ls around here. Like that raging argument about whether analog TV exists in the US. One person claimign that the tiniest amount persisting is validation of his argument, when if anyone had cited similar proportions in any engineerign matter, he'd pour scorn on them for claiming that a negligible quantity is overridingly relevant. TOTAL loss of perspective! People losign it that badly, just to stand their ground. Courage is useless, with such ****-poor convictions to base it on. No loss of perspective here. Simply a matter of someone being an anal and pendatic asshole and having fun with him. If someone else had said there are no analog stations, he would have used the exact same arguements I used as any number greater than zero falsifies "no" while calling the other person a ignorant troll. Just in case you haven't figured it out, I concider he who shall not be named an arrogant playground bully and I poke him just to watch him rage on and on. -- Jim Pennino |
Yaesu rises again!?
rickman wrote in :
Man, what have you been smoking? Nothing. I don't drink either. But if you can only think of feeble replies like those, then you aren't thinking well enough, No wonder you, and so many others here, go round inj silly little circles. Do you really think that techncalities explain and shape thew world, and all that is in it? If so, and you can do nothign but deride all who express anythign to suggest they think otherwise, then you'll just keep winding yourself round those little circles while the rewt find other things to do. |
Yaesu rises again!?
|
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/1/2014 10:47 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in : Just in case you haven't figured it out, I concider he who shall not be named an arrogant playground bully and I poke him just to watch him rage on and on. Sure, but like I mentioned in two posts some time back, I wondered if you were doing it partly out of some hidden pain, and later, I wondered if you just liked being cruel. Doesn't matter though, my specualtions mean nothing much. What probably does matter is that the more you engage in it, going round the same little tight circles, the closer he gets to you, and you het to him, and in the end people won't care to spti hairs over any difference. If you want better than that, it's bettert to spiral poutward and look like a metaphysical fool, than to spiral ineard in a hopeless collision. Works for me, anyway. :) On a not-very-related note, I wonder how some of the other posters stay fairly quiet and on-topic with stuff. I think i know, I've been on Usenet often enough to see familiar names from various groups, electronics, lasers, etc.. I think they likely have many groups they watch. I was never good at that, I could never handle the info overload that results, or the temptation to post as much as that woudl demand. Like the few forums I have ever used, I always chose to hang out on one place at a time, and usually a peripheral one at that, to keep out of the busiest groups. I'm sure it's a weakness of mine, because it's never been entirely successful at handling group dynamics on the internet. Anyway, I'm returning to a life a lot more like mine was before I got a net connection, and I just hope that my insight for what it's worth, does mean somethign to someone. That's why I took this last chance to post it before I go. I very nearly didn't, another two days, and I'd have managed not to, but never mind.. :) The only thing he misses is I don't get in a rage over his posts at all - he's not worth it. In fact, in a way I feel sorry for him. He obviously has psychological problems. I doubt he's very successful in social situations. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/1/2014 10:38 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Man, what have you been smoking? Nothing. I don't drink either. But if you can only think of feeble replies like those, then you aren't thinking well enough, No wonder you, and so many others here, go round inj silly little circles. Do you really think that techncalities explain and shape thew world, and all that is in it? If so, and you can do nothign but deride all who express anythign to suggest they think otherwise, then you'll just keep winding yourself round those little circles while the rewt find other things to do. I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You need to come down to earth man... -- Rick |
Yaesu rises again!?
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m5jd36$ca6$1@dont-
email.me: I doubt he's very successful in social situations. Could be so. I don't know one way or the other. I do know that I find them difficult, often intolerable. Schizoid personality disorder will do that to a person... On the other hand, I am not insane, no matter how anxious I may at some time past have worried about that, and a psychiatrist told me I have a 'very good insight into my condition', and they left me to manage my 'condition' as I chose, without compelling me to take drugs or other treatments. I'm telling you this (and anyone else who has a passing interest) because it illustrates a basic trust. There's nothing like knowing my own fallibility to me harder on myself than anyone else is ever likely to be. In turn, it makes me easier on others. It cuts both ways, the less hard I am on them, the less hard I have to be on myself. It's a win-win situation, in the long run. But if I find it painful to be somewhere, it doesn't mean I'm not glad to get out of it. That's why I say all this. Most people will rarely be that open about their own weakness. So if I defend myself when there seems so little to defend so rigorously while attacking others, I haven't distinguished myself from the problem as I see it. Whetber anything I said will do any good for anyone I have no idea. I won't be around to see it, probably not even if I stayed years. The only time stuff like that changes fast is when someone goes though a life-changing event that usually does a lot all at once. I'm tired, rambling a bit, going to sleep. If I do not say anymore, it may mean BT pulled the plug first, or it may mean I just decided not to. I just decided it would likely do no harm saying what I have said tonight. I didn't mind saying it, so there it is... |
Yaesu rises again!?
rickman wrote in :
I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. You need to come down to earth man... No, you need to get your face out of the dirt. That is all. |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 12/1/2014 11:06 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m5jd36$ca6$1@dont- email.me: I doubt he's very successful in social situations. Could be so. I don't know one way or the other. I do know that I find them difficult, often intolerable. Schizoid personality disorder will do that to a person... On the other hand, I am not insane, no matter how anxious I may at some time past have worried about that, and a psychiatrist told me I have a 'very good insight into my condition', and they left me to manage my 'condition' as I chose, without compelling me to take drugs or other treatments. I'm telling you this (and anyone else who has a passing interest) because it illustrates a basic trust. There's nothing like knowing my own fallibility to me harder on myself than anyone else is ever likely to be. In turn, it makes me easier on others. It cuts both ways, the less hard I am on them, the less hard I have to be on myself. It's a win-win situation, in the long run. But if I find it painful to be somewhere, it doesn't mean I'm not glad to get out of it. That's why I say all this. Most people will rarely be that open about their own weakness. So if I defend myself when there seems so little to defend so rigorously while attacking others, I haven't distinguished myself from the problem as I see it. Whetber anything I said will do any good for anyone I have no idea. I won't be around to see it, probably not even if I stayed years. The only time stuff like that changes fast is when someone goes though a life-changing event that usually does a lot all at once. I'm tired, rambling a bit, going to sleep. If I do not say anymore, it may mean BT pulled the plug first, or it may mean I just decided not to. I just decided it would likely do no harm saying what I have said tonight. I didn't mind saying it, so there it is... I understand completely. I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth getting all upset over. These people make all kinds of claims - but when challenged to back up those claims, they try to say "you prove I'm wrong", just ignore the challenge completely, or try to change the subject. And when you make a claim and prove it, they just discard your proof because it differs from their opinions. It's pretty easy to spot people like that. Yes, it's 11:20 here, and I need to go to bed, also. Got an early morning tomorrow and a lot of work to do, since I'll be out of the office all day Wednesday in a projector training seminar. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 01/12/2014 12:49, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from 30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band. I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an Xtal controlled treansverter. There is a block diagram of the Yaesu FTDX560 on page 3 of the manual he http://www.foxtango.org/ft-library/F...ers_Manual.pdf The IF is 5.52 to 6.02MHz I'd be interested to know if anybody has successfully mod'd any of the 1970s Yaesus to cover 60m. I have an FT-200, but I'm guessing that's unfeasible as the VFO covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz 73 Mike G4KFK/A61 |
Yaesu rises again!?
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip I'm old enough that I've learned people like him just aren't worth getting all upset over. Then why bother responding at all? -- Jim Pennino |
Yaesu rises again!?
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in : Man, what have you been smoking? Nothing. I don't drink either. But if you can only think of feeble replies like those, then you aren't thinking well enough, No wonder you, and so many others here, go round inj silly little circles. Do you really think that techncalities explain and shape thew world, and all that is in it? If so, and you can do nothign but deride all who express anythign to suggest they think otherwise, then you'll just keep winding yourself round those little circles while the rewt find other things to do. I agree with much that you've posted in this thread. Usenet is riven with degenerates who are full of bitterness, particularly in the amateur radio groups and particularly in ukra. The CFV for the moderated uk.* group is open. if you lend your vote to its creation, we may well end up with a haven on Usenet away from the spite and silliness that'll be worth your staying for. I hope to see you around. -- Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone |
Yaesu rises again!?
"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
... Lostgallifreyan wrote: Nothing. I don't drink either. But if you can only think of feeble replies like those, then you aren't thinking well enough, No wonder you, and so many others here, go round inj silly little circles. Do you really think that techncalities explain and shape thew world, and all that is in it? If so, and you can do nothign but deride all who express anythign to suggest they think otherwise, then you'll just keep winding yourself round those little circles while the rewt find other things to do. I agree with much that you've posted in this thread. That is because you are as two peas in a pod; both posting page after page of non-technical waffle; waffle that is completely unrelated to amateur radio and generally riddled with ad hominem remarks. |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 02/12/14 00:11, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
BT are going to kill Giganews, and due to recent events I decided I'd not be chasing Usenet after I lose easy access, but this point is too interesting for me not to post, even if I don't see any replies. (BT puls the plug in under 48 hours from now). Open a free account with the well-regarded Eternal September, or pay a massive 10 euro for News Individual Net's excellent service. Both text only. http://www.eternal-september.org/ http://news.individual.net/ Keep in mind the forthcoming vote for the formation of a UK Usenet Amateur Radio moderated group. If you want to see how successful the US version has been - they have the same US chap behind their formation, and the US Charter has been virtually cut-and-pasted - visit rec.radio.amateur.moderated. You'll need a hefty kill-file to get rid of the AR-related blogs (61.7% of the total) and bear the long gaps between postings by individuals (4 days 2 hours for the last one). But it's a haven! So much so that no-one from here posts on it despite some wanting a moderated group. Just because BT is rolling over doesn't mean you won't have Usenet access. -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
Yaesu rises again!?
Chronos wrote in
: He's doing it with a verbosity never before seen on a digital medium but there's no great harm in that. Precisely so. :) I had a thought before switching on the computer today... We get nice straight lines, accurate letters to write with, and it's easier than ever to hide irrationality behind a veneer that feels authratitative. Apart from typos due to agitation or poor eyesight (and good luck to anyone who thinks they can easily tell the difference in another person's post), it's often hard to tell what's behind some of the statements made this way. My verbosity comes from knowing that the more said, the more clues we leave. I'm ok with that, because it reduces risk of misinterpretation. |
Yaesu rises again!?
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote in
: I agree with much that you've posted in this thread. Usenet is riven with degenerates who are full of bitterness, particularly in the amateur radio groups and particularly in ukra. The CFV for the moderated uk.* group is open. if you lend your vote to its creation, we may well end up with a haven on Usenet away from the spite and silliness that'll be worth your staying for. I hope to see you around. BT are pulling Usenet's plug for their clients in about 24 hours from now, and I'm not chasing after it, hence I'm trying to chose words carefully (if a tad excessively) to say my bit while I still have this access. I'm not so concerned with degeneracy, so long as it doesn't directly and unavoidably impact on my life. When crack dens open up in a neighbour's flat, or stuff pours from windows into the yards, then I try to stop it somehow, after learnign over the course of twenty years how hard that is if allowed to get out of hand. Otherwise, live and let live, says I. I agree that a moderated space is useful, nice even, like the difference between having a drink in an orderly pub, and doing it under a railway arch. (I do not drink so I indulge in metaphor instead.) I'm more concerned with 'generacy'. So long as it grows without being stamped on, there's an antidote to the quarreling, and people will make that railway arch as nice as an orderly pub. Put it another way: if they don't try, they will probably end up trashing the pub too. Pubs are a useful metaphor, their openly accessed design, with saloons, gardens, whatever, are part of centuries old efforts to solve problems with human interactions. Usenet could probably learn from them... Like a pub, it is an anachronism that is unlikely to die. Just remember that in any bar that has too many fights, all that remain are fighters. And most of them dig in like they prefer the pain. I never figured that out, people say they don't want it, yet they court it, often. It will probably be easier, and better, to choose one way or the other, or more people will leave than arrive. |
Yaesu rises again!?
|
Yaesu rises again!?
Spike wrote in
: Just because BT is rolling over doesn't mean you won't have Usenet access. I want to break from it, BT are just making the decision easier. I might get back to it sometime, but I always chose to haunt one group at a time, it's just the way I do things. It's not really been a successful way to do it. To ignore a group for a while when a fight breaks out, instead going to haunt another with some interesting discussion in it, is an obvious better move, and I used to do it too, but managing about 3 to 5 groups at once is all I could handle. I also tend to say a lot at times, and I often go to silence purely to balance that out if nothing else. I won't make fights but I can be obsessive, and I have some other things I need to do that could use a bit of constructive obsession. A bit of monklike silence will be good for me. |
Yaesu rises again!?
Chronos wrote in
: Of course, some people can be wilfully obtuse, however much care you take with your prose. And however much care I take, there will be some flaw I notice within a day, or an hour. :) Never mind, if the spirit gets past the letter, then something worked. |
Yaesu rises again!?
On 02/12/14 12:25, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Spike wrote in : Just because BT is rolling over doesn't mean you won't have Usenet access. I want to break from it, BT are just making the decision easier. snip Fair enough. I'm sure there will be some of us about if you decide to look in again. ITMT, good luck with your project(s). -- Spike "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law". Judge Rolfe |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com