[R-390] Hi

Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:30:54 -0700

Yes, but is the R-1051 the same (or similar) to an R-105?  (R-105 I believe
was a Navy Aircraft recevier, but don't hold me to it, have never seen one.)

We might go the way of Hallicrafters...

SX-15 is almost the same as SX-16.
S-20R is the same as an S-40B except for a style change and minor changes in
the first audio.
etc.

All to confusing to me.

73 de Bill, AB6MT
[email protected]

----- Original Message -----
From: Cecil Acuff
To: Todd Bigelow - PS
Cc: Jim Simmons ; [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi

Hi Todd and group,

        No Todd I meant nothing of the sort....I don't believe in dumbing
anything down or being condescending in any way.  This is not about the
inexperienced....we have had confusion occur on this list amongst those that
have been around here for a while...It's just a means of clarifying.....And
as a few have mentioned...I don't find it silly at all!

There is no "convention" as you mention below...except for what works for a
particular group. (majority)  You added tremendous confusion to the R-1051
series to try and make your point....the simple fact is they are called by
their letter designations....except when speaking of the undesignated.  When
speaking of the undesignated there can be confusion as to whether one is
speaking of that single model or the series as a whole, so it has been
"Unofficially" designated as the "Plain".  I did not come up with this....it
existed before I started with these radios....primarily because someone
somewhere must have decided there was a need.  Same goes for the R-390x
series.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't a need
identified somewhere in the past.

Personally I will refer to the radio's in whatever way the group chooses as
a whole to do so!  Makes no nevermind to me!  I just know when someone I am
talking to about great tube radio's asks me if I have ever owned an R-390 my
answer has been "yes, I have two "A" models".....I guess I'll need to start
replying "No" since I don't actually own an R-390.

You guys figure it out and I'll go with it!  No problem here!

We will still refer to the R-1051 undesignated as the "Plain" though...at
least around my shop!

Cecil....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Bigelow - PS" <[email protected]>
To: "Cecil Acuff" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Jim Simmons" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Hi

> 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:
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
R-390 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390