In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

I hope I don't bore you with long winded repetitions of what is
contained in RDH4 and all the other reputable text books. But
whatever they say, I agree with, so I am not needed for citations and
page numbers.

Why don't you print all your posts in a book. You certainly have written
enough of them.

So far in June - July you have cross posted 70 threads and hundreds of
messages to RRS.

Stop being a cross posting moron.

I continue to write as much as I feel like to whoever I feel like.

You will always fail 100% to limit my rights to free speach.

snip

If you are going to keep cross posting to RRS then you are going to keep
getting posts from me complaining about it. Get used to the fact that if
you are not going to be a good Usenet citizen I'll continue to bring it
to your attention. Those are my free speech rights you stupid cross
posting moron.

Why the hell you have to cross post a technical ****ing contest to three
groups is beyond me other than you are just Trolling for trouble. If
that is the case good work.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Bill wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


Stop being a cross posting moron.


I continue to write as much as I feel like to whoever I feel like.

Its sad that your willingness to be an useful partner on Usenet is
overwhemelmed by this "I'll continue... TO BE A NET BLOWHARD" attitude.
Do it in 50 words or less and I'll send you a prize.

-BM

I will continue to post informative detailed replies to whoever and
whenever I wish.

If you have the inability to read more than 3 words at a time,
go back to school to learn to read.
But perhaps you suffer from some attention span deficit syndrome,
in which case a psychiatrist is what you need.

If you just loathe my posts, then don't read them.

I often post in less than 50 words, but I have to decline your offer for a
prize.

Patrick Turner.

Why the hell you have to cross post a technical ****ing contest to three
groups is beyond me other than you are just Trolling for trouble. If
that is the case good work.


Last I heard people use radios to listen to shortwave broadcasts. And
some of those radios are vacuum tube types, and some people may want
better fidelity in the detected audio. Silly me....

In article ,
Robert Casey wrote:


Why the hell you have to cross post a technical ****ing contest to three
groups is beyond me other than you are just Trolling for trouble. If
that is the case good work.


Last I heard people use radios to listen to shortwave broadcasts. And
some of those radios are vacuum tube types, and some people may want
better fidelity in the detected audio. Silly me....

Yes you are silly. All my radios are solid state and sound great.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamoron said:

Yes you are silly. All my radios are solid state and sound great.

Then why are you crossposting off-topic in rec.audio.tubes?
Consider putting a 4CX250 in a certain place and lighten up.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Stop being a cross posting moron.

I continue to write as much as I feel like to whoever I feel like.

Pat,

I enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Go ahead and continue the
discussion, sure won't bother me. You've got to remember that in
rec.radio.shortwave, the only form of communication approved by the
"regulars" is childish name-calling, preferably arising out of topics that
have nothing to do with radio at all. Those of us actually interested in
shortwave radio listening have learned to ignore 90% of the posts that
appear here. Yours are like a breath of fresh air.

Sander deWaal wrote:
Telamoron said:
Yes you are silly. All my radios are solid state and sound great.

Then why are you crossposting off-topic in rec.audio.tubes?
Consider putting a 4CX250 in a certain place and lighten up.

Calm down and have a nice 807.

--
DAMN tax cuts! They're letting money trickle down to people who spend it!
WASHINGTON, July 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. government posted a larger-than-
expected budget surplus in June, propped up by higher quarterly business tax
receipts, a government report released on Tuesday showed.

Brian Running wrote:

Stop being a cross posting moron.

I continue to write as much as I feel like to whoever I feel like.

Pat,

I enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Go ahead and continue the
discussion, sure won't bother me. You've got to remember that in
rec.radio.shortwave, the only form of communication approved by the
"regulars" is childish name-calling, preferably arising out of topics that
have nothing to do with radio at all. Those of us actually interested in
shortwave radio listening have learned to ignore 90% of the posts that
appear here. Yours are like a breath of fresh air.

Stimulated by the courageous John Byrns, I plan to continue where I see fit.

However, for short wave, there is little requirements for broad band audio via
the use
of a wide band IF, which would allow several SW stations to be heard
simultaneously,
if they were fairly close.

So for the best selectivity for SW, about 3 kHz max is all that is needed, so
speach
can be understood, so a standard added IF stage or RF stage in a tubed set is
all that's required,
but the double CF detector can still be used, although fitting it with some
sort
of noise limiter with variable threshold is a favourable idea.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Brian Running wrote:

Stop being a cross posting moron.

I continue to write as much as I feel like to whoever I feel like.

Pat,

I enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Go ahead and continue the
discussion, sure won't bother me. You've got to remember that in
rec.radio.shortwave, the only form of communication approved by the
"regulars" is childish name-calling, preferably arising out of topics
that
have nothing to do with radio at all. Those of us actually interested
in
shortwave radio listening have learned to ignore 90% of the posts that
appear here. Yours are like a breath of fresh air.

Stimulated by the courageous John Byrns, I plan to continue where I see
fit.

However, for short wave, there is little requirements for broad band audio
via
the use
of a wide band IF, which would allow several SW stations to be heard
simultaneously,
if they were fairly close.

So for the best selectivity for SW, about 3 kHz max is all that is needed,
so
speach
can be understood, so a standard added IF stage or RF stage in a tubed set
is
all that's required,
but the double CF detector can still be used, although fitting it with
some
sort
of noise limiter with variable threshold is a favourable idea.

Patrick Turner.



Given that some SW stations broadcast music and some transmit 5kHz audio,
for some folks, a much wider bandwidth IF may be desired for listening.

For IDing and voice only listening a narrow bandwidth is better, but when
conditions permit, a wider bandwidth allows for much better listening.

craigm

In article ,
clifto wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Telamoron said:
Yes you are silly. All my radios are solid state and sound great.

Then why are you crossposting off-topic in rec.audio.tubes?
Consider putting a 4CX250 in a certain place and lighten up.

Calm down and have a nice 807.

Take your meds and eat a few integrated circuits.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California