[R-390] Hi

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Cecil Acuff wrote:

>Jim and group...
>
>       You've no doubt heard all the arguments of why the "Non-A" speak is
>used....It clearly reduces confusion and there is no harm done.
>
I just gotta disagree with this. (o: I've heard arguments in favor of 
other things too: didn't make them 'right'. What you're basically saying 
Cecil is that, since some people initially have no idea about the 
differences between the two models, the best thing we can do for them is 
to somehow speak in 'simple' terms or otherwise talk down to them in a 
language that even they can understand. I'm sorry, but I find that just 
crazy. What could be more simple than using the actual 
designation/nomenclature for the radio? It doesn't get much easier than 
that.

> Here is
>another area where it is done to clarify what is being spoken of....I
>repair/restore R-1051's...there were the R1051, the B model the C model the
>D model the H model and the G model.  But when we speak of the undesignated
>R-1051 we designate it the "Plain"   It removes all doubt....so does the
>"Non" speak as it relates to the 390 series.
>  
>
So you don't call it the R-1051 non-B-non-C-non-D-non-H  to reduce 
confusion? This goes completely against the convention you just 
supported in the above paragraph. It's an R-1051, like the R-390, which 
some of us also refer to as the 'plain' R-390. Hmmmm.....talk about 
confusing. So it's a good idea to call the plain R-1051 what it actually 
is, but not the plain R-390?

Here's an example from me: if someone asks what type of dog you have, do 
you tell them the breed or do you call it a non-cat because they have a 
kittycat and you don't want to confuse them?  

>It's clear that you have been around long enough that you ought to know
>"That when in Rome you should do as the Romans do"  meaning I think you are
>in the minority on this one....so why not go with the flow...
>  
>
I think the majority call it what it is. At least, the folks I 
communicate with know the difference without doublespeak. The fact that 
the vast majority don't usually get into this discussion because they 
find it pretty silly. Just look at the recent discussion of past members 
who no longer post as a guide. I don't ever recall seeing Nolan, Dr. 
Jerry, or any of the others who know these radios so well having 
referred to anything as a 'non-(*)'. 

>This whole endeavor is recreational and about a love for the radio....why
>try to make it so structured....I get enough of that at my job (yep...I'm
>not retired yet)....this should be fun (is)...and the humor we have around
>here is mostly fun...until it is mixed with too much attitude!
>  
>
I agree, Cecil. Unfortunately, removing the already-simple, basic 
structure in order to address some perceived need for a 'dumbing down' 
has always gone against my grain. I truly believe the *best* thing we 
can do for a newbie or anyone else lacking the knowledge is to give them 
the basic facts and truths, not try to mold it into something considered 
'simpler and less confusing to them'. That starts to lead a group of 
(overall) intelligent people down the same path as the education system 
has gone with so-called basic compatencies and the resulting graduation 
of kids who can't read.

I have to agree with Jim, it doesn't at all appear to be a case of 
wanting to give someone good, helpful information as much as a few who 
have grown comfortable with misinformation wanting to indulge.

>Respectfully
>
>Cecil Acuff
>WB5VCE (30yrs)
>
>R-390A x 2
>SP-600 x 3
>SX-62A
>SX-28A
>SX-101 MkIII
>HQ-170A
>Drake 2B\2AQ
>NC-183D
>Icom R-75 (Kiwa'd)
>R-1051 series x 10
>
de Todd/'Boomer'

(list omitted for fear of retaliation)   (o: