[Boatanchors] Re Audiofools

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Hello Barrie & group -

Barrie Smith wrote:

>Gee, Todd:
>
>I agree with Duane, and I agree with most of what you related.
>
>The exception would be calling the R390 a "non A".  I call my R390 a non A
>because (it seems) that most people think of only one receiver when R390 is
>mentioned, and that would be the R390A.
>

Things aren't always what they seem, though. Most people think of them 
as the R-390 and R-390A. Some internet afficianados don't know the 
difference.

>Now, I'm not talking about people who own, or have used the R390*.*, I'm
>refering to those who have only a minor knowledge of the ("the" being the
>"A") '390.
>
>I've encountered numbers of people, over a many year period, that had no
>idea that there was a R390, non A. 
>

Well, according to the registered nomenclature for the radio, there 
isn't. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a military tag with 
contract info and documentation which says "R-390, non-A". I know what 
you're saying though - some seem to think life started with the A model, 
hence the need to make all other models the 'afterthought' since their 
knowledge is so limited in scope.

> I actually got into something of an
>arguement recently, on one of the audio reflectors I'm a member of, with a
>fellow that simply would not believe there was an older version of the
>R390A.
>

We've hashed this out many times on the R-390 list and it always comes 
out the same: some will insist that it's okay to make up a new name for 
something which already has a clear name, simply because others handle 
it wrong. Basically, it's a case of using a mistake to justify the use 
or employment of another mistake. Here's an example:

 Say you have a Ford pickup, F-250. Your friend has the F-350. Someone 
else who knows little about trucks and can't distinguish between the two 
(or, apparently, can't read those numbers on the side) decides to call 
them all F-350s. Will you then agree with their way of thinking and 
start calling your truck a 'Ford non-350' just because the other party 
isn't bright or motivated enough to do it right, but likes trucks? And 
if so, then shouldn't it be applied across the board?  If it's a case of 
the two being so similar that problems arise, why isn't the KWM-2 
referred to as the 'KWM-2 non-A'? They're a LOT more similar than the 
R-390 and R-390A. 75S-3 non-A non-B? 75A-3 non-2? How about SX-28 non-A? 
This is the basic argument behind using 'non-A'. Does it really make sense?

Personally I don't think that adding another layer is the proper way to 
deal with confusion. In my view, it's best to be clear up front and if 
an issue exists for someone who doesn't understand, try your best to 
educate them to the correct way of identification - don't make up some 
unlisted, imaginary term to deal with the situation. Unless of course, 
you're dealing with a 3 year old who's grasp of reality is questionable. (o:

It would seem I'm very fortunate in that 99.9% of the people I deal with 
actually know the name of the item they are dealing with and have no 
trouble using it. They know the R-390 series of receivers well enough to 
distinguish between the two because they know what to look for. And 
they're not afraid to teach a newbie whatever they know to make it 
easier for them. I never worked on these radios for the government, I 
wasn't even born when they went into service. But as simple as it 
sounds, if I can learn it, why can't anyone else with a true interest? 
Do we really need to dumb down everything to a level favorable to 
someone considered 'less knowledgable' or too lazy to do it right? What 
favor do we do them by avoiding the obviously reality in favor of using 
some warm, fuzzy term that they can more easily grasp? That would appear 
to indicate that we, as users and owners of these fine rigs don't really 
think others are mentally capable of understanding, so we need to make 
up a new language for their benefit. While I'm sure this could be 
applied to some individuals, it doesn't seem worth the confusion of an 
added layer of inaccurate information IMHO.

This whole issue has come about as a result of the internet discussion. 
I had never heard the term until a few years ago on here, and even then 
it was seldom used. When Mike Crestohl and Chuck Ripple started the 
R-390 list, it was about the R-390 receiver, including the later A 
version. Calling an R-390 a non-A seems to imply that the A came first, 
like everything else revolves around it, which is also inaccurate. If it 
weren't for the R-390/URR, there would've been no later, cost-reduced A 
version. And like you, those of us who own an R-390 very much appreciate 
the differences.

Sure, you can call an R-390 a giraffe if you want to. There's no law 
against it. The guys who taught me about these rigs just shake their 
heads in disgust when someone says 'non-A', like people have become so 
stupid that they can't even use correct grammar or correct designations 
(can you say 'ebonics'?). For me, I'd prefer to explain to others the 
correct way to distinguish between the different types of R-390 
receivers and help them understand, as others did for me. Or, to put it 
another way - perpetuate the truth, not a fairytale. Besides - 'A' is a 
lot easier to say than 'non-A', and a lot less confusing. You have the 
R-390 and later 'A' model or the R-390 non-A and later R-390A (which you 
can apparently call just R-390 since the other is a non-A, thereby 
calling two radios by the wrong designation).

Call me stubborn, set in my ways, or unable to adapt to the 
ever-changing world around me, but I still think it's better to be 
accurate even if it requires a bit of educating(read 'work'), than to 
dumb things down to a level where no one has to even try, where soft 
baby talk is the preferred approach to dealing with intelligent people. 
Wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities, after all.

At least you and I (and many others) know the difference, Barrie. There 
are some out there who do not, thanks to the 'non-A' approach.

73 de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ