[R-390] antenna trim red dot

[Todd Bigelow - PS]

Jim Simmons wrote:

>To The Group
>
>I have both radios, the R-390 and the; r390a, R-390A, R390nonA, 390 non a,
>and so forth. I have never had any problem telling them apart. In my 20+
>years in the military I always knew if I saw, was using, or if someone asked
>me, which radio was which. People who used them, just identified them as a
>R390 or R390A. I guest I just don't understand all the new-speak. You can't
>call a dog a dog anymore.
>
>Jim
>

Well Jim....

I made a post about this just last week. You're right - it doesn't make 
much sense, but it does exist. It reminds me of the 
'politically-correct' way of speaking, so as not to offend those who 
might be of a lesser ability to understand. Not saying anyone on here 
falls into that category, just that this is what it reminds me of. I've 
been on here since sometime in the mid-90s and watched it go from being 
a joke when 99.9% of the members understood the difference to being more 
of an accepted way of referring to the radios - almost as if someone 
with the knowledge to know better was talking down to the level of 
someone who didn't. A lot like the dumbing down of ham radio in general. 
Rather than pointing out the problem and the foolishness of the entire 
concept, it became easier to just 'go with the flow' rather than risk 
offending someone who was fond of the term or truly believed it was 
correct. So it's gone from a issue of two similar but different radios - 
the R-390 and A model to a warm-fuzzy new name for those less able (or 
willing) to actually use the correct term.

And Barry (take your pick, there are a couple) is right - it is funny. 
Imagine going from 4 syllables (R-three-nine-tee) to 6 syllables 
(R-three-nine-tee-non-A) to make it....easier! Easier than saying 
"R-390" or "R-390A". Easier than learning the difference perhaps? And if 
that's not enough to make you bust a gut laughing, then apply the same 
concept (since it's 'acceptable') to the Collins 75S-3 receiver: with 
several different variations, you can end up with a pretty interesting 
label, like "75S-3 non-A non-B non-C". Or the "KWM-2 non-A". I wonder, 
did the military have a FRC-93 non-A?  

I have to disagree though, with the R-390 label as being 'precise'. It's 
just correct, nothing more or less. True, R-390-non-A is not "wrong" in 
that you can call a cat a dog if you want  (my mom used to tell me 
horses were cows, just to see if I was paying attention) or for that 
matter, you can call the R-390 a Kenwood since it's a far more familiar 
term to so many these days. I just believe that going along with this 
'mis-speak' for the benefit of others is really no benefit at all, and 
certainly unfair to them if they don't know any better. Y'know...I'll 
bet this is how those people in France came to believe that Saddam is 
really a decent guy who hasn't done anything wrong. (-:

The best we can do Jim is call a spade a spade. Hopefully it will become 
fashionable again some day? In the meantime, I'm thinking of getting 
some tags made up that say "R-390 Non-A" so we can make a killing on 
epay. I mean......if it's really true, then they must be incredibly rare 
too. Right?

                 " R@RE ORIGINAL R-390 NON-A S/N 1 MINTY LQQK!!! "

 "Tag says it all. If you are an R-390A afficionado, then you know JUST 
how rare these R-390 non-As really are. In fact, this is the ONLY known 
example! No documents to confirm it, but I have it on good authority 
that Art Collins had this radio made for God himself, as his personal 
Non-A. PERFECT condition! (which reinforces this radio's past - would 
God have it any other way??). I restored this radio myself and can 
assure you that it is completely original and has NO modifications 
except for the Kenwood LED VFO read out and a few extra holes from old 
stuff I added, then removed. Don't miss this opportunity!"

It's a good thing we don't have a union involved, that's all I can say....

73, Boomer KA1KAQ (using one of Barry #1's good hideouts to....hide out)