If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

who that we know does that Sound Like Len

remind you of a certain exMarine we know and loathe

It's a "sort-of" reminder, Mark, but let's clear up something:
I don't personally "loathe" this "exmarine." That person
isn't worth much in here, always insulting those who just
disagree with his viewpoint. It's not possible to have any
sort of dialogue with Major Dud. :-)

It's pretty much the same with all the self-righteous, ultra-
conservative (about the code test) pro-coders. Sigh.

As to Klein, all he seems to want in here is to FIGHT. In
that regard he is a clone of Robeson and first cousin to
several others in here. He is too haughty to correspond
with anyone who disagrees with him.

Perhaps someone once jammed an IC above his arm?
He has been going around "with a chip on his 'shoulder'"
ever since... :-)

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? - Mark, Just ignore them.
 

" wrote in
ups.com:


an old friend wrote:
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW
that silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a
quarter century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat
cases were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings
were marked with color bands and were on the market for at
least 15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc
capacitors for general bypassing and coupling applications (by
both tube and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting
color coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

who that we know does that Sound Like Len

remind you of a certain exMarine we know and loathe

It's a "sort-of" reminder, Mark, but let's clear up something:
I don't personally "loathe" this "exmarine." That person
isn't worth much in here, always insulting those who just
disagree with his viewpoint. It's not possible to have any
sort of dialogue with Major Dud. :-)

It's pretty much the same with all the self-righteous, ultra-
conservative (about the code test) pro-coders. Sigh.

As to Klein, all he seems to want in here is to FIGHT. In
that regard he is a clone of Robeson and first cousin to
several others in here. He is too haughty to correspond
with anyone who disagrees with him.

Perhaps someone once jammed an IC above his arm?
He has been going around "with a chip on his 'shoulder'"
ever since... :-)






Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? - Mark, Just ignore them.
 

Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:

From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

Here's some more to chew on:

RFCs (Radio Frequency Chokes, inductors) in axial-lead plastic
tubular packages are STILL marked with color-code bands. There's
a MIL SPEC on that as all "long-time design engineers" should
know; such parts are even used in commercial market electronics.
It's really irrelevant HOW capacitors are marked as long anyone
using them can know their value and working voltage and
tolerance and apply them properly.

There are 7 (seven) amateur radio licensees in the USA that could
answer to "Al Klein." Are you one of those?

I can say without hesitation that I am NOT a licensed amateur.
I am a licensed commercial-professional in radio and have been
so for 50 years, beginning in military 24/7 big-time HF
communications 53 1/2 years ago. I have all sorts of valid
documentation on that and some in here have seen some of that.
Do you have ANYTHING in the way of ID? On the Internet?

Or, are you going to scribble meaningless misdirections in here,
attempting to portray some personal "outrage" for being
corrected? Especially about a well-known electronic component
identification method which you don't seem to know yet others
can verify?

I'll just put you down as an IMPOSTER poster, one of those
wanna-bees who might never have been anything but really,
really wants to be someone. That's up to you. I don't care.
I've seen your kind on the Internet, on the Bulletin Board
Systems since 1984. None have anything worthwhile to
contribute but all wanting to be a SOMEBODY on screens.



Mark, Just ignore them.

Hey, "Slow," you might want to check your message headers
a bit more carefully. I am not Mark. Neither am I a "mark"
for con games. :-)

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Oh, my, another one with "stupid." Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Yup, a fledgling "dispute manufacturer" busy practicing...

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

"Slow," I've been involved in radio for 53 years. Most of that time
as a professional. As a part of that, I once "worked" a station
ON the moon. No bounce needed. Quarter million mile DX.
Can you top that as an amateur? :-)

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:



Mark, Just ignore them.

Hey, "Slow," you might want to check your message headers
a bit more carefully. I am not Mark. Neither am I a "mark"
for con games. :-)
it seems that Slowcode think I am some secret maniolator (or is just
realy stupid about programing jammer bots

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Oh, my, another one with "stupid." Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Yup, a fledgling "dispute manufacturer" busy practicing...

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

"Slow," I've been involved in radio for 53 years. Most of that time
as a professional. As a part of that, I once "worked" a station
ON the moon. No bounce needed. Quarter million mile DX.
Can you top that as an amateur? :-)
I csn about match that Lenn not quite but close

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

From: an old friend on Sat, Aug 19 2006 2:18 pm

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:


Mark, Just ignore them.

Hey, "Slow," you might want to check your message headers
a bit more carefully. I am not Mark. Neither am I a "mark"
for con games. :-)

it seems that Slowcode think I am some secret maniolator (or is just
realy stupid about programing jammer bots

He seems CONFUSED. Maybe that's a result of hearing all
that beeping morse code? :-)

He sent his "reply" to me TWICE... tsk,tsk :-)


"Slow," I've been involved in radio for 53 years. Most of that time
as a professional. As a part of that, I once "worked" a station
ON the moon. No bounce needed. Quarter million mile DX.
Can you top that as an amateur? :-)

I csn about match that Lenn not quite but close

Noooooo. I worked a STATION on the moon, namely one of the
ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). Sent a
command to the SWS (Solar Wind Spectrometer) part, got the
response back on earth. Two-way. The ALSEPs are now
silent, nobody can work them. :-)

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.



His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good,
quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has
all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in
seconds.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.



His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good,
quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has
all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in
seconds.

Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago
had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us
all about His fantasy of things. :-)

Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with
definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the
Military Affiliate Radio System. Weeks went by without his
admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication
on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced
with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.



His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good,
quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has
all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in
seconds.

Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago
had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us
all about His fantasy of things. :-)

Little Billy Beeper had him pegged - he's nuts.

Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with
definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the
Military Affiliate Radio System.

Such complete ignorance of MARS, yet somehow, he claims that he was the
Assistant NCOIC of a NMC MARS Station on Okinawa. Simply unbeleivable.

Weeks went by without his
admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication
on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced
with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad.



Accusations and insults. Whichever grad student locks on to him first
is one lucky SOB. All the work is done.