[ARC5] ARC-5 modulator FS

[fkamp at comcast.net]

Mike Morrow wrote:
> 
> William wrote:
> 
> >And just to pick on Robert, some BC-454s and such found their
> >way into non SCR-274N applications. So there.
> 
> And just to pick on almost everybody, it's
> 
> SCR-274-N, not SCR-274N nor SCR274N nor SCR 274N
> BC-611-F, not BC-611F nor BC611F nor BC 611F
> R-23A/ARC-5, not R23A/ARC5 nor R-23-A/ARC-5
>                      nor ARC5/R23A nor R-23A / ARC-5
> T-47A/ART-13, not T-47A/ART-13A
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Even the set manufacturers make errors, such as the name plate on AN/URC-68 set reading "AN/URC 68" and the name plate on the R-1004A/GRC-109 reading "RECIEVER" instead of "RECEIVER."
> 
> Seriously, it would be a lot easier to search for and find auction items or web sites of interest if the *exact* nomenclature were used by all parties when referring to an item.
> 

In my opinion Mike has a good point.  At first I
felt he was being too picky but it was the
misspelling of receiver that got to me.  I am not
the worlds best speller.  I guess you could call
me the worlds best at recogizing a misspelled word
even though I am a contributor to the problem.

There is nothing that puts me off more than
obvious (to me) misspelling or using 'there' in
place of their, and other such misuse of the
language.  It detracts from the content.  The
content might be just fine otherwise but
grammatical errors open up the possibility that
there may be other errors.  Errors that may have
to do with the content.  After all, if a person is
not particular about the grammar, they may be just
as unparticular about the content.  Maybe not, but
if you write like a moron it becomes very
difficult to think of you as a reliable source of
information.

At least that is what my high school english
teacher told me.  I took it to heart because she
was 'a babe'.

Those are my two cents worth.

Thanks to Mike for setting some nomenclature
specs.

Regards,
Frank Kamp
K5DKZ