|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonFloyd L. Davidson Date: Mar 9, 2008 14:07
krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>> JosephKK yahoo.com> wrote:>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@ apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>> >>>>krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> Foxtrot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire"
>>>>>>>>>>> phone extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking
>>>>>>>>>>> the second wire from a different twisted pair? ...
|
| Show full article (4.49Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 9, 2008 14:18
>
> "krw" att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.223dff2f50174ee99898e2@news.individual.net
> : > In article <63gmrhF27s269U1@mid.individual.net>,
> : > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
> [snip]
>
> : >> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
> : >> your software can't do what you want it to, get
> : >> software that can.
> : >
> : > This is only true if your intention is to write for
> : > yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?
>
> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
> by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
> text, tough. ...
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 9, 2008 14:21
> "krw" att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.223e004375fc73209898e4@news.individual.net
> : > In article <63iho1F27f59eU1@mid.individual.net>,
> : > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
> [snip]
>
> : >> Ok, fine. But you are over-complicating things IMHO.
> : >> Why do you need different fonts for different levels
> : >> of quotes..?
> : >
> : > That is his choice, one that you are defeating for not
> : > other reason than you vanity (which this thread is
> : > likely stroking).
>
> Exactly - it's *his* choice, so why should *I* have to modify my
> long-established system to accommodate him and a handful of people who
> can't cope..? ...
|
| Show full article (1.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 9, 2008 14:22
>
> "krw" att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.223dff74f9f306b09898e3@news.individual.net
>
> [snip]
>
> : > *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the
> : > problem. ...and more than one.
>
> Eh..? *I* don't have a problem.
Yes, you do.
> Seems to me it's *you* that has the
> problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text
> message.
Again, it is not *I* who has a problem.
--
Keith
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Mar 9, 2008 14:23
> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>> JosephKK yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@ apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>In article <47CDEAD6.2D67BCF3@ yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@ yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>says... >>>>>>>>>>> Foxtrot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire"
>>>>>>>>>>>> phone extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking ...
|
| Show full article (4.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDon Bowey Date: Mar 9, 2008 15:26
"krw" att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.223e1f756b97b6729898f6@news.individual.net...>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>> JosephKK yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@ apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>In article <47CDEAD6.2D67BCF3@ yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@ yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>says... >>>>>>>>>>>> Foxtrot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire" ...
|
| Show full article (4.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Floyd L. DavidsonFloyd L. Davidson Date: Mar 9, 2008 16:00
krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:>> krw att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>> There is a fundamental difference between a folded
>> dipole and a loop antenna. It is exactly as I
>> suggested above.
>>>>>Folded dipoles don't work so well if you twist them, though.
>>
>> You apparently have no idea what a folded dipole *is*,
>> in theory. Consider another similar construction, which
>> does not change anything in the same way that a loop
>> does: multiwire rhombics. The effects are the same as
>> experienced with a folded dipole (the two conductors equate
>> to one larger conductor).
>>
>> The claim that separation between the two wires of a
>> twisted pair (or even an untwisted parallel pair)
>> transmission line has the effect of a loop antenna is ...
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CBFalconerCBFalconer Date: Mar 9, 2008 17:38
krw wrote:
> ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
... snip misquoted stuff ...
>
>> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in
>> plain text, by the way. If you can't cope with a simple :
>> character in a bit of ASCII text, tough.
>
> This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
> is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
> reader?
Well, there have been detailed intelligent postings of reasons to
comply, and postings of general malignancy, and I have avoided at
least 1/2 of all that so far. I see no reason to retract my plonk
so far. I wonder how many other plonkers there are out there.
|
| Show full article (0.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: phil-news-nospamphil-news-nospam Date: Mar 9, 2008 20:04
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
| "Stuart" dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
| news:4f7d88c922SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com
| : > In article <63ishuF282s6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
| : > Ivor Jones wrote:
|
| : >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
| : >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
| : >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
| : >> tough.
| : >
| : > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
| : > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
| : > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I
| : > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.
|
| But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
| over 10 years and nobody...
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: phil-news-nospamphil-news-nospam Date: Mar 9, 2008 20:05
In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|
| "Stuart" dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
| news:4f7d876e8aSW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com
|
| [snip]
|
| : > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
| : > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
| : > quoting as if you had used "> >"
|
| Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)
What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is NOT an issue of what
the character is. It is an issue of DOUBLE indenting.
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
