God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.

On 03/06/2014 07:04 AM, Steve wrote:
God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.


Robert uses what kind of radio?

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:
On 03/06/2014 07:04 AM, Steve wrote:

God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.





Robert uses what kind of radio?

The one that glows in the dark !

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:
On 03/06/2014 07:04 AM, Steve wrote:

God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.





Robert uses what kind of radio?

Why are you asking me this? Why would I know this?

I looked him up. He uses a number of different rigs, some old, some new, which I guess is just to be expected for someone's who's a radio nut. Not sure how this is relevant to the thread, but there it is.

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:06:40 PM UTC-5, Steve wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:

On 03/06/2014 07:04 AM, Steve wrote:



God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.











Robert uses what kind of radio?



Why are you asking me this? Why would I know this?

On 03/06/2014 12:20 PM, Steve wrote:
I looked him up. He uses a number of different rigs, some old, some new, which I guess is just to be expected for someone's who's a radio nut. Not sure how this is relevant to the thread, but there it is.

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:06:40 PM UTC-5, Steve wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:

On 03/06/2014 07:04 AM, Steve wrote:



God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.











Robert uses what kind of radio?



Why are you asking me this? Why would I know this?


Maybe if you didn't top post the thread would maybe make more sense..

Maybe if you didn't top post the thread would maybe make more sense..

Maybe. Or maybe it'd make more sense if you didn't post at all.

On 03/06/2014 06:49 PM, Steve wrote:


Maybe if you didn't top post the thread would maybe make more sense..

Maybe. Or maybe it'd make more sense if you didn't post at all.


I see no need for animosity. Let me guess. You are old and bitter.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Steve wrote:

God save us from people who think that Sherwood is providing us with a
list of "the best radios". Sherwood himself has done about everything he
can to dispel this idea, but apparently to no avail.

So someone digs up an old thread via google in order to spam (using the
bug at google that allows replies to posts older than 30 days), confusing
things by not quoting what he's replying to.

And then that causes those old threads to "rise to the top" at google,
where other people don't look at the date and think it's acceptable to
reply to old messages, yet they are actually replying to the first message
as if it was posted yesterday. Chances are good if I went to google, all
of this was hashed out at the time, but people feel a need to add their
2cents worth all this time later.

And to make matters worse, they don't even quote what they are replying to
either, so the rest of us, google is not usenet, haven't a clue what you
are talking about.

Dont' reply to old messages. And if you really have that need, at least
quote some of the message you are replying to, to give context.

Michael