[R-390] Hi

Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:34:17 -0400

You reasoning sounds very much like those people at the very bottom of the
totem pole who  worked for asa. To impress people like me, one of the common
soldiers, with how important they were, they referred to the radios the used
as A's and non A's. We, in the real world, just referred to them as R390's
or 390A's. Your little elitist altitude must come for the same need the asa
guys had.
What you are saying in the effort to justify your use of the term
"non-whatever", putting all the bs aside, is that some of have been using
the term and don't like to be told we are wrong. So there; Na, Na, Na, , ,
,.

Jim Simmons
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Hauser" <[email protected]>
To: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>; "Gene Beckwith" <[email protected]>;
"Cecil Acuff" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi

> Nope -- not BS -- that would be the R-390BS version -- very rare.
>
> Neither is the use of "non", though awkward, it the established, defacto
> descripto delicto.
>
> Even with this add-on, helpful respondents sometimes jump in and suggest
> cures that apply to the "A" model in a non-A situation, but mostly it is
> helpful in preventing that kind of confusion.
>
> Problem started a half century ago.  The R-390 non-A (not sorry), was just
> the "R-390" as there was no plan to develop other models, that is, until
the
> gov't. got the bill.  Somebody must have said, or wrote "These are great
> receivers -- we're gonna' need a whole lot more.  Is there a volume
> discount?"  After the laughter subsided at Collins, the push was on to
come
> up with a cheaper version the would work as well overall and would not
cause
> 3rd degree burns when curious pilgrims stuck their fingers through those
> holes on the side and touched the pretty orange 6082's.  The rest is
> history.
>
> Had they anticipated a second model, they would have called the first one
> the R-390A and the second one the R-390B.  Or maybe they would have given
it
> a whole new number, like the R-391, but that was taken and so was R-392.
I
> don't know about R-393, but there's an R-394 which may have predated the
> R-390A.
>
> Meanwhile, in the emerging world of data processing, code development,
> operations automation, and technology in general, the principle of the
> "positive designator", "positive indicator" or words to that effect had
> become well established.  Part of this was encouraged, if not mandated by
> the prevalence of "fixed field" methodology in data processing (as on
> punch-cards, flat files, etc.) -- which brought us great things like
leading
> zeros, and so on.  Each data item had to have the same number of
positions.
> The notion of a positive indicator -- a rule in many environments -- stems
> from the known fact that it is downright dangerous to identify two
different
> things by the simple presence or absence of an element.  This is even true
> of such diverse nomenclature and indexing schemes as military tech manuals
> and the Dewey Decimal System.  The presumption is that the shortened form
of
> a designator applies to a whole family of items and the added "fields" or
> suffix identifies the specific family member.  To some extent, that's true
> of this reflector.  This is the "R-390" list which is so encompassing it
> includes the R-389, R-390, R-390A, R-391, R-392, and sometimes even the
> R-388.  So, this was a bit messed up at the start.
>
> Now all of these have unique identifiers within the same length, except
the
> R-390A.  From a communications standpoint, it is undesirable to use simply
> 390 to refer to the original model.  As there is no letter which preceeds
> "A" in our alphabet, the clarifier "non-A" has been customarily added.
> Adding a "B" would be counter-intuitive and cause some of the uneducated
to
> assume that the "B" model is newer.  Just because something sounds a bit
> silly, doesn't mean it's not "established".  Take the federal gov't. for
> example -- please.
>
> Also, there are many more "A's" around because once they got the cost
down,
> they made a whole lot more of them.  Then, at some point, the order was
> given (fed. gov't. again) to destroy all "R-390A's".  As there are still a
> fair number of "non-A's" (still not sorry) around, none are known to have
> blue or yellow stripes painted on them and may have escaped that fate due
to
> the absenced of the "positive designator".  ("Heck, this one here sez just
> "R-390", not "R-390A".  Guess we better leave it alone and bust up the
other
> ones."  In that case, the lack of a postitive designator was beneficial.)
>
> However, as with the Sherman tank, overwhelming production numbers won the
> war and most often, when a question or "issue" arises on the reflector,
> someone is talking about the A-version.  When the subject is the original
> model, it needs to be flagged to avoid confusion, and the "positive
> indicator" has become "non-A" for lack of a better alternative.  I suppose
> we could call it "R-390O" for original, but another rule is not to mix
zeros
> and the letter "O", so forget it.  "R-390blank" doesn't cut it.  We could
do
> what Zenith did with the 600 series of Transoceanics.  They ran it up to
the
> Y600 (I think), didn't want to use "Z" because, I guess that might be
> confused with "Zenith", and so the last two versions were the A600 and
B600.
> By the same token, we could take some liberties and call the original one
> the "R-390B" but that would confuse a lot of folks looking for the "B" on
> the tag.  Also, once again, it violates the rules of designating stuff -- 
no
> going backwards -- Zenith notwithstanding.  Other alternatives don't quite
> cut it, like "Un-A", "Anti-A", "Pre-A", and so on.
>
> Have I worn you down yet?  If not, you need to get indoctrinated.  Say
> "non-A" over and over again until the B/S reaction subsides.  Make a point
> of thinking and saying out loud "Hmmm, perhaps I will use the NON-A this
> evening as I plan on listening to some music from afar and do not want
those
> pesky mechanical filters ringing and adding harshness.  Yes, indeed, I do
> think the NON-A will be a better choice.  I can always switch over to the
A
> later on."
>
> Nope -- the use of "non-A" is not B/S, though some of the foregoing may
> qualify. ;-)
>
> Barry
> (The one with the Nomex suit and flak jacket.)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>
> To: "Gene Beckwith" <[email protected]>; "Cecil Acuff"
<[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi
>
>
> > New guy, I wish. Been a amateur radio operator for 30 yrs. Started out
as
> > WN4WYO, moved around, keep changing call signs, now kf4tun. Used my
first
> > 390 a bit over 40 years ago. Had a couple assignment where we did our
own
> > repairs.  Got to know the 390 and 390A fairly well.
> > Own both a 390 and a 390A.
> > The only real problem I have is BS, and thats what this "non" business
is
> .
> > If you own a model T Ford, does that make all other Fords made non-A
> fords.
> > If you have a 390, just state it. I bet everyone on this list will know
> what
> > your are talking about and you won't sound kind of goofy. Are the non
> > speaker using new-speak or just trying to be politically correct?  The
> same
> > is true of the 390A.
> > If my comments and that making light of the "non-A" types offends them,
it
> > should be noted that I am not sorry. When you say something, say it, be
> > proud of who you are and what you own, use, needs parts for, want to
sell,
> > need help adjusting, ect., ect....
> >
> > Jim Simmons
> >
> >
> > . ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gene Beckwith" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Cecil Acuff" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi
> >
> >
> > > Cecil,
> > >
> > > Agreed...either too much time and no projects to work on, or a
> "New-be"...
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Gene
> > >
> > > Cecil Acuff wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dead horse alert!
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>
> > > > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi
> > > >
> > > > > I have been thinking about the use of the term "non-A", I have
> changed
> > my
> > > > > mind, and now fully support the use of the term "non A". However
to
> > > > > accomplish this and to insure perfect clarity, we will have to
refer
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > R390A as the non, non A and keep referring to the R390 as the non
A.
> > > > > It's clear, easy to understand and will stop the confusing caused
by
> > using
> > > > > the correct terms of R390 or 390A.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <[email protected]>
> > > > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:55 AM
> > > > > Subject: [R-390] Hi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still here..still read most..just have not posted for
> > > > > > a while...(A long while..)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wish to publicly thank David Medley for discovering a
> > > > > > hidden difficult problem that had stopped my R-390.
> > > > > > (thats NOT R 390    >A<   !!!, thank you very much...)
> > > > > > His good work is very much to be admired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards to the list,  John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > > > > > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > R-390 mailing list
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > R-390 mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > R-390 mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390