[Boatanchors] re:question

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

On 3/12/07, Bob Young <youngbob53 at msn.com> wrote:
> Actually I suppose I should have kept my thoughts to myself, I find 390 "non
> A" redundant, sorry if anyone took me seriously,

But this is serious stuff, Bob -

I bet you didn't know that, by using the same approach, the R-390
non-A is also known as the R-390 non-391, R-390 non-B, R-390 non-388,
R-390 non-Icom. I think the mentality is that describing what it isn't
is much easier and better than saying what it really is? I've heard
some say that they do this to "help the newbies, since it's so
difficult to tell the 2 models apart". Hmm.....help a newbie by giving
them misinformation. Cool idea. As Robert points out, there are
several ways you can tell which is which just by looking at it. We've
been doing it wrong for years, along with the military and
manufacturers. The newer, dumbed-down approach fits better in today's
world.

Once you embrace this approach, you realize there are many more
examples out there: The Collins KWM-2 non-A, SX-28 non-A, 75S-3 non-A
non-B non-C and so on. After all, any expert knows the A model came
first because it's at the beginning of the alphabet! And you just know
there are others out there waiting to be discovered, like non-X
models, even numerically-challenged items like the NC-173 non-183.

Think of it as a lid filter, Bob. If you're looking for accurate info
and someone makes reference to the 'R-390 non-A', head for the door.

~ Todd non-Bob, KA1KAQ non-KA2