[R-390] Gentlemen Please stop or end it!
Joe Connor
joeconnor53 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 5 11:14:07 EDT 2013
To keep it on-topic, how about soldering guns at 10 paces?
Joe Connor
>________________________________
> From: Glenn Scott <wa4aos at aol.com>
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 11:05 AM
>Subject: [R-390] Gentlemen Please stop or end it!
>
>
>
>Gentlemen, No need to address the Fine Lady from this list as she ALWAYS takes the high road,
>
>Please, can we stop the, you said, he said, they said junk or the he said back in 2011 and get back to RADIO.
>Remember the movie, Good Morning Vietnam where Adrian Cronauer said;
>Look, tweedledee, it's an actual event. .... And this is JUST RADIO.
>
>We are all on the SAME team here in that we all enjoy these very fine vintage receivers.
>As I see it, the arguments should be left off of the list. I wonder what the newcomers think
>of this bickering? I wonder how many have decided to just read the documents and not deal with the
>BITCHING?
>Do we ever give thought to what the engineers, technicians and others who originally designed these receivers
>and got them out the door(s), would think about the discourse often put to text here?
>
>Most of the long time list contributors here are extremely knowledgeable and I have learned
>much from the thoughts and suggestions of others as is the case for most of us, present and past
>There is room for ALL and ALL should stay. Lets all strive to always take the path kindness and professionalism .
>
>Of course, there is door number Two..
>
>Yes that's right folks, behind Door Number Two
>is a Pair of brand New, Double barrel, sawed off, 12 gauge Dueling-shotguns loaded with buck shot.
>Here is SC it's still legal, in a few counties, to pick up arms, walk 10 paces, turn and fire at your opponent.
>Normally, pistols are used and someone survives. In this case only the readers of this list get that advantage.
>
>Kidding aside, PLEASE, very intelligent people read and contribute to this list. It's a true
>Win Win resource for all of us if we eliminate the mean spirited comments. Lets leave child play where
>it belongs, OFF OF THIS LIST! Or come to SC and take advantage of Door Number Two!!!!!!! I offer my service of
>Professional Pace Counter!! One, Two, Three......
>
>Regards,
>Glenn Scott WA4AOS
>DSM Labs (dot com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: r-390-request <r-390-request at mailman.qth.net>
>To: r-390 <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 11:38 pm
>Subject: R-390 Digest, Vol 112, Issue 5
>
>
>Send R-390 mailing list submissions to
> r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> r-390-request at mailman.qth.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> r-390-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of R-390 digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Self-inflicted wounds? (Roger Ruszkowski)
> 2. RF deck alignment (Tisha Hayes)
> 3. Re: Some more Self-inflicted wounds? (b_hagen at sbcglobal.net)
> 4. Re: Self-inflicted wounds? (wli)
> 5. Re: Self-inflicted wounds? (2002tii)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 17:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Roger Ruszkowski <flowertime01 at wmconnect.com>
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Self-inflicted wounds?
>Message-ID: <8D05F6D7DCDB358-1F44-26926 at webmail-d274.sysops.aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>Dennis,
>
>Amen to style, Tisha has that.
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:23:07 -0500
>From: Tisha Hayes <tisha.hayes at gmail.com>
>To: R390A <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: [R-390] RF deck alignment
>Message-ID:
> <CAACTF11TxcdTFGCHmQ-YXySAaAtJmnLnxbph=U7LVuDqWEk44Q at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>I know that this generally falls under the "leave it alone" category but
>has anyone ever gone through the process of aligning the RF deck stages and
>bands for linearity?
>
>Generally I know that we pick a few spots on each band and peak through the
>RF stages for performance but what happens when a slug has been replaced,
>repaired or the spring was accidentally stretched? That one slug will have
>a different peak than the other in the string when the band selector switch
>is lined up that way.
>
>The only way I could think to do it would be to inject a known RF signal
>level and to use a RF microvoltmeter (like a Boonton 92) at test points to
>walk through the stages.
>
>Am I wrong-headed to think that the more selective the RF stages are the
>better the desired response would be at the IF?
>
>Ideas?
>
>--
>Ms. Tisha Hayes/ AA4HA
>
>"Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
>that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to
>be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of
>the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." -- George Orwell
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 19:20:46 -0400
>From: <b_hagen at sbcglobal.net>
>To: "'Roger Ruszkowski'" <flowertime01 at wmconnect.com>,
> <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Some more Self-inflicted wounds?
>Message-ID: <79C0925CDA0F42E7931DF08184347439 at bruce>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>A+
>
>
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
>On Behalf Of Roger Ruszkowski
>Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 17:04
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Some more Self-inflicted wounds?
>
>
>
>
>
>Fellows,
>
>
>
>If had to reply to every critic of my spelling, grammar, miss use of words,
>
>humor that went clean over your heads, humor that feel flat in the mail
>before
>
>arrival and just dumb wrong statements I have posted, I would never get to
>close a thread.
>
>
>
>I will be honest with you all, you are my writing skills feed back team.
>Back when Wanda said
>
>to me Roger your writing skills suck you need to practice. Back in 73 an
>English teacher in
>
>Okinawa commented to me that every paper I did in his class was on the R390A
>receiver.
>
>And ask was it the only thing I could write about. I said not but it is the
>subject I can write
>
>about and get an assignment done on time with only a couple of drafts. I am
>still writing
>
>R390 papers as impromptu exercising in writing skills. You Fellows are
>reading them and
>
>giving me good feed back. I thank each and every one of you who have sent me
>an
>
>e mail that commented on my writing. I do wish some of you would work on
>your
>
>critical feed back skills.
>
>
>
>After 20 years at Hughes Aircraft as a systems test engineer I can also now
>write a
>
>coherent test procedure test step and do well with boiler plate test
>reports.
>
>
>
>Not much market for these limited skills.
>
>
>
>But people own R390's and have problems with their R390's and did not
>receive 18 months
>
>of training on their R390's maintenance. I love these receivers and do not
>want to ever
>
>hear that one got junked. Just do not even bother to post the story. I can
>live the rest of
>
>my life and never need to know.
>
>
>
>So these people come to the reflector and ask questions. Not knowing R390
>jargon, and not knowing
>
>exactly what the problem is they some times offer up some very vague
>questions. Mostly you Fellows
>
>are very knowledgeable and do a super job of being very helpful to quickly
>offer up a diagnostic process
>
>to isolate the problem for them. Then you go on to help them fix the
>problem and if necessary find parts.
>
>
>
>If the solution was to tell them to download a copy of the TM and read the
>book, I think we would be not
>
>mentoring well. We have the R390.net page and we have the Pearls of Wisdom
>and we have the Y2K
>
>manual and we have the reflector archives. And the solution is still not to
>tell your readers with questions
>
>go read the web pages.
>
>
>
>We are mentors. We know where this stuff is. Your job is to distil your
>readers question so we can
>
>provide them a correct solution that solves their problem and not our
>perceived problem of their problem.
>
>Success is determined by our reader. If we are not solving someone's problem
>we are wasting everyone's time.
>
>This brings us back to mentoring. We were asked a question because some one
>though we would help them
>
>with a quick solution. Making a careers of repairing R390's is not out
>readers most important objective. As
>
>good mentors I see we need to utilize the resources we have compiled over
>the years to assist our readers.
>
>We do this by cutting and pasting the best response back into an e mail and
>posting it. So what if we answer
>
>the exact same question 6 time sin six years for 6 readers. These are six
>new readers who are just having the
>
>same repeated problem with their receiver and we know its a common problem.
>But out new reader does not
>
>know this.
>
>
>
>We are Ann and Abby Landers writing advice to our readers. Ann and Abby
>write on a different topics
>
>than we do as we try stay on the topic of R390's and off the topics of Ann,
>Abby, Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.
>
>We are none the less just column writers. And as we deal with a very
>specific technical topic
>
>(the care and feeding of R390's and R390A's and their near relatives R388's
>R389's and a couple more)
>
>[some one will post the exact nomenclature and remind me I missed them] I
>think we provide a more
>
>important service and certainly to a much smaller audience. But we should
>not underestimate what
>
>we are doing and the value of the service we provide to others who share an
>interest we have in
>
>Amateur radio, antique radio and electronics.
>
>
>
>We do not see Ann Landers or Abby writing that gee Dr. Phil, I so disagree
>with the last personal view
>
>you posted.
>
>
>
>We have an open reflector here so questions can get in. Any one can also
>take a shot at doing
>
>a Ann landers or dear Abby response to any question. We can all practice
>our writing skills
>
>an entertain a group of readers along the way.
>
>
>
>
>
>As long as I am up on this soap box, I think many of us forget the long
>shadow this reflector
>
>has. Every post I have ever made is still on line. Every post any one makes
>to this reflector
>
>is on line. You can get rude crude and off topic today but it will be on
>line forever. In these days
>
>where more than 30 percent of employers do web searches on prospective
>employees think
>
>about what you post. You are not anonymous in what goes into the R390
>archives.
>
>You have to ask your self do I want a future employer and co workers,
>reading my posts and analyzing
>
>the comments I make about some one, thus getting yourself tagged as mean,
>disrespectful,
>
>insensitive, not a team player, a potential source of discontent,
>indiscreet, and plain crass.
>
>
>
>Or do you understand and see that every post you put on the R390 reflector
>is just like
>
>graffiti on the building wall. Its your tag. Its your art. It says a lot
>about you, your gang
>
>and your standing in the gang. Your post are a display of your writing
>skills. Your subject
>
>matter says a lot about personality.
>
>
>
>A lot of people would like to post a lot of things on this reflector. But I
>ask you to
>
>stop and think about what you write. Maybe you should just hit the delete
>
>key instead of the send key, go get another cold brew, and remain employable
>
>by not having an e mail post limit your employment opportunities for the
>rest of your life.
>
>
>
>I am happy Don does not moderate this list tightly. I get to express my
>self.
>
>
>
>Just my three cents worth.
>
>
>
>Roger Ruszkowski AI4NI 33C4H 68 - 73 Vietnam, Korea, Okinawa, Ft Devens
>Mass. not in exact order.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>R-390 mailing list
>
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
>Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> _____
>
>I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
>.
>SPAMfighter has removed 7096 of my spam emails to date.
>
>Do you have a slow PC? <http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>
>Try a free scan!
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 18:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: wli <wli98122 at yahoo.com>
>To: "r-390 at mailman.qth.net" <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Self-inflicted wounds?
>Message-ID:
> <1375667241.54606.YahooMailNeo at web125302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Well, this has been a real interesting thread. Roger, Rich, and Tisha have been
>very observant. In reality, this group functions on two levels: like a bunch of
>*Elmers* to the newbies, and like a bunch of *experts* puzzling over a complex
>or controversial area. Just admit that no-one knows everything. Diplomacy and
>common courtesy go a long way.
>
>Roger makes a very good point in reminding us that anything we post is there
>FOREVER on the Web servers. Folks can troll back though years of e-mail posts.
>Do not think for a minute that *delete* means it is erased forever. The recent
>flap over data-mining employing text strings is all too true and has been in
>existence for years and years.
>
>One way to look at this forum, is to imagine it as a virtual coffee break area
>in an unheated Quonset hut. We gather to gossip about our latest exploits inside
>the R390's as the new guys and gals listen in. And that is my three cents
>worth.???? W. Li
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 23:32:06 -0400
>From: 2002tii <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
>To: 390 list <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] Self-inflicted wounds?
>Message-ID: <20130805033832.6296E11BBCF at karen.lavabit.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Perry wrote:
>
>>Because of using CAPS I was mocked and ridiculed by a list member
>>not once, but twice. When I wrote online that I believed he owed me
>>an apology I was ridiculed again. A real butt reaming.
>
>Since I was the person who allegedly "mocked" and "ridiculed" you,
>and since you have mischaracterized the facts, I'll take this
>opportunity to set the record straight.
>
>I have included links to the actual posts for anyone who isn't bored
>to tears by this nonsense already and who wants to see the complete
>posts for themselves.
>
>1. You posted : "Ceramic [capacitors] are for RF ONLY and film
>capacitors are for AUDIO
>ONLY." <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2012-January/050146.html>
>
>2. You did not qualify this with "I think," or with "In my opinion,"
>or with "As a general matter," or in any other way -- you proclaimed
>it as A Universal Truth. What was problematic was the content of
>this statement, not the fact that you underscored it with capital letters.
>
>3. I replied, "As I have repeated tirelessly over the years,
>ceramics are much superior as bypass caps and I strongly recommend
>using them when recapping any boatanchor," but that "it is an
>unwarranted overstatement to say that ODs are the 'wrong choice' or
>that they are 'for audio only'" -- and gave reasons for my
>view.
><http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2012-January/050147.html> You
>apparently interpret this as mocking and ridiculing you.
>
>4. You took umbrage at my use of the term "unwarranted
>overstatement," called it "personal denigration," asked what
>"unwarranted" meant, and said you thought I owed you an
>apology. <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2012-January/050172.html>
>
>5. I disagreed. Calling something an "unwarranted overstatement" is
>not mocking or ridiculing. It is merely stating that an assertion is
>not fully supported by available evidence. I could not believe
>anyone on an e-mail reflector was so thin-skinned that they could
>possibly think calling something an "unwarranted overstatement"
>amounted to an affront of any kind, much less to "personal
>denigration," and said as
>much.
><http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2012-January/050173.html>
>Several other list members posted, seemingly sharing this opinion
>(follow the "unwarranted overstatement" thread in the archives). You
>apparently interpret this as "[a] real butt reaming."
>
>The two posts identified above were my only posts regarding this matter.
>
>Looking further into the list archives, I found other examples of
>Perry taking umbrage where no reasonable person would think offense
>had been given. Here is one example (I used this one because when I
>read it I found that I had participated at the time -- anyone who
>cares to search can find others):
>
>A list member posted that he was looking for parts. Based on a
>number of things, most of which had nothing to do with the list,
>Perry took it upon himself to "call him out" on the list (Perry's
>words).
><http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2008-July/043555.html> His
>laundry list of perceived offenses was: (i) the member posted only
>when he needed parts to repair equipment that he then sold; (ii) the
>member did not respond to Perry's e-mail suggesting that he should
>sell radios to list members instead of parting them out; (iii) the
>member didn't want to pay the price Perry was asking for tube
>shields; and (iv) the member described some knobs Perry bought on an
>auction site as in great condition while Perry thought they were only
>average, then he blocked Perry from bidding on his auctions when
>Perry left him neutral feedback.
>
>Among these, the only possible reflection on the member's ethics as a
>seller was that Perry thought he overstated the condition of some
>knobs Perry bought (and even Perry himself didn't seem to think it
>was all that bad -- he apparently did not return the knobs for a
>refund, he did not leave negative feedback, and he was mad that the
>seller blocked him because he wanted to bid on more of the seller's auctions).
>
>I posted that I didn't think any of the perceived offenses was the
>sort of seller fraud that warranted public remarks on the
>list. <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2008-July/043564.html>
> Perry defended his
>position.
><http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2008-July/043565.html> I
>made a final post to clarify why I thought he was out of
>order. <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/r-390/2008-July/043573.html>
>
>At the end of that message, I asked: "Could it be that you take
>offense quite easily, and turn every perceived slight into a hanging
>offense?"
>
>Apparently, we now have the clear answer to that.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>R-390 mailing list
>R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>
>
>End of R-390 Digest, Vol 112, Issue 5
>*************************************
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>R-390 mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
More information about the R-390
mailing list