David wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 12:03:01 -0700, wrote:

I don't get upset at you when you post off-topic and you shouldn't get
upset at the other members of this group when they flame your ass.

Steve

Are you the ****ing King of Usenet?

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

"David" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2005 16:52:38 -0700, wrote:

If you can really hear these stations, why does it irritate you so much
to find out that others hear them as well, via their shortwave
receivers? And didn't you earlier say that, because you live out West,
you can't hear very much?

I think you need to get your story straight.

Steve

**** you, you goddam psychopath. I posted a little notice about a new
radio service coming to the States and you get all ****ing phallic on
me. Just ****ing die!

Daveys having a melt down.

MnMikew wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2005 16:52:38 -0700, wrote:

If you can really hear these stations, why does it irritate you so much
to find out that others hear them as well, via their shortwave
receivers? And didn't you earlier say that, because you live out West,
you can't hear very much?

I think you need to get your story straight.

Steve

**** you, you goddam psychopath. I posted a little notice about a new
radio service coming to the States and you get all ****ing phallic on
me. Just ****ing die!

Daveys having a melt down.

Probably forgot his meds again.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

On 21 Jun 2005 18:04:51 -0700, wrote:

If you don't enjoy shortwave, why are you posting here?

Steve

There's more to ''shortwave'' than listening to cold-war relic rapidly
vanishing HF broadcasters. The reason many of us once liked them is
because they offered voices and opinions not readily available
elsewhere. Now, unless you find end-times prophecies worthwhile, such
variety is readily available from multiple sources.

You are a dinosaur.

David wrote:

On 21 Jun 2005 18:04:51 -0700, wrote:

If you don't enjoy shortwave, why are you posting here?

Steve

There's more to ''shortwave'' than listening to cold-war relic rapidly
vanishing HF broadcasters. The reason many of us once liked them is
because they offered voices and opinions not readily available
elsewhere. Now, unless you find end-times prophecies worthwhile, such
variety is readily available from multiple sources.

You are a dinosaur.

You are a 'tard!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"David" wrote in message
...

You are a dinosaur.


That would make you dinosaur excrement.

If we're dinosaurs, then why are you posting here?

Steve

wrote in message
oups.com...
If we're dinosaurs, then why are you posting here?

I think it's time that rec.radio.satellite needs to be created
to go along with the rest.

--Mike L.

Andrew Oakley wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:02 -0500, "JLewis"
wrote:

People always try and hold on to 'old technology' - myself included...I
personally think the BBC was wise to pull the plug when it did, instead of
sinking more money into a sinking ship...

Shortwave, Ham Radio, CB, etc. (all of which I still use and enjoy) - are
just buggy whips - soon to be outdated and displaced - except for the few
who cling to them for their own personal satisfaction - not for real
communication.

YMMV

This is a logically good argument, but it falls short when portability
comes into play.

The whole reason why radio (per se; not specifically shortwave)
remains so popular despite TV and the Internet is because you can take
a portable radio with you wherever you go; into the garden, in your
car, in the bathroom, on holiday, in a tent, in a caravan (trailer),
in a motorhome...

I can't do this with a computer. Firstly a laptop costs twenty or more
times more money than a radio, secondly the battery life is
considerably less, but mostly there just isn't universal affordable
wifi or mobile broadband yet.

I used to be able to take a small shortwave whip-antenna radio on
holiday to America and listen to the BBC back home. Now I can't.

Now either I have to carry around thirty metres of random wire and
some very detailed frequency charts, or I have to lug my laptop which
can't stay away from the mains electricty for more than 3 hours and
requires me to subscribe to expensive mobile internet connections (or
worse, expose my security to the prospect of hijacking someone else's
open network).

I can't overstate how ****ed off I am about this. The BBC made their
overseas radio services difficult, expensive and non-portable. I miss
my radio.

And to top it all, my TV licence, paying the BBC, has gone up again!
If it wasn't for Doctor Who I'd be picketting Bush House.

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com

Agreed. Though portable satellite receivers are certainly possible.
XM even has a model, though I prefer Sirius.

As for the new Dr. Who -- as someone who was not a fan of the original
series at all, it was a pleasant shock when a friend came over with a
captured video from a couple episodes. Brilliant.