K
krw
*MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the problem. ...and
more than one.
*MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the problem. ...and
more than one.
K
krw
That is his choice, one that you are defeating for not other reason
than you vanity (which this thread is likely stroking).
The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.
Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your arrogance has gotten
in the way of communication.
K
krw
....and they work rather well as antennas, just as any open line.
Folded dipoles don't work so well if you twist them, though.
I
Ivor Jones
: > In article <[email protected]>,
: > (e-mail address removed) 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..?
: >> The beauty of Usenet to
: >> me is it is (theoretically at any rate) in *plain
: >> ASCII text* so all this mucking about with fonts,
: >> colours or whatever that people do on the web is, or
: >> so I thought, mercifully absent.
: >
: > The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.
No, it hasn't, that's my point.
: >> Seems I was wrong. But I'm not changing my quote
: >> marks. Live with it or plonk me, it's all the same to
: >> me.
: >>
: > Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your
: > arrogance has gotten in the way of communication.
Whatever you say. But I'm still not changing my quotes to suit a handful
of people out of the thousands I've come across in the years I've been on
Usenet.
Bye.
Ivor
: > (e-mail address removed) 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..?
: >> The beauty of Usenet to
: >> me is it is (theoretically at any rate) in *plain
: >> ASCII text* so all this mucking about with fonts,
: >> colours or whatever that people do on the web is, or
: >> so I thought, mercifully absent.
: >
: > The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.
No, it hasn't, that's my point.
: >> Seems I was wrong. But I'm not changing my quote
: >> marks. Live with it or plonk me, it's all the same to
: >> me.
: >>
: > Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your
: > arrogance has gotten in the way of communication.
Whatever you say. But I'm still not changing my quotes to suit a handful
of people out of the thousands I've come across in the years I've been on
Usenet.
Bye.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
[snip]
: > *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the
: > problem. ...and more than one.
Eh..? *I* don't have a problem. Seems to me it's *you* that has the
problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text
message.
Bye.
Ivor
: > *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the
: > problem. ...and more than one.
Eh..? *I* don't have a problem. Seems to me it's *you* that has the
problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text
message.
Bye.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
: > In article <[email protected]>,
: > (e-mail address removed) 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.
Bye.
Ivor
: > (e-mail address removed) 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.
Bye.
Ivor
S
Stuart
Correct.
The usual meaning is a flexible, rubber or PVC covered, two or three core
cable, used to connect an appliance to its electrical source. This may be
via a plug and socket in the case of something like a vacuum cleaner, or
fixed as in the cable suspending a light fitting from the ceiling fixture.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
S
Stuart
Ivor Jones said:: : Ivor Jones wrote:
: : I replaced your non-standard
: : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
: : characters. They foul up other software.
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 "> >"
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
S
Stuart
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.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
I
Ivor Jones
: > In article <[email protected]>,
: >> 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 has *ever* complained about this before.
Ivor
: >> 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 has *ever* complained about this before.
Ivor
I
Ivor Jones
[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 ;-)
Ivor
: > 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 ;-)
Ivor
F
Floyd L. Davidson
krw said:
There is a fundamental difference between a folded
dipole and a loop antenna. It is exactly as I
suggested above.
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
false.
The idea that this is covered in "EE100" is equally
ridiculous, and the dismissal (in a different message)
of my suggestion to read the work of Kraus, where it is
in fact discussed in detail, suggests that some people
really should read Kraus.
K
krw
This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
reader?
K
krw
Right. Why should you care about anyone other than yourself?
It *obviously* has.
Of course you're not going to adopt to group norms. You're far to
important for that.
K
krw
Yes, you do.
Again, it is not *I* who has a problem.
K
krw
Keep up the baloney Floyd. You're good at it.
F
Floyd L. Davidson
krw said:
If it were baloney you should be able to demonstrate it
fairly easily; instead you post insults and can't follow
up to even the lowest level of technical discussion.
Do you understand the comparison between the effects of
multiple wires used in rhombic design to the multiple
wires used for folded dipole design? (And do you
understand the one difference?)
And do you have any idea how silly it is to say that
folded dipoles don't work if they are twisted???? Of
course many, if not most, homemade folded dipoles used
at HF frequencies do in fact end up being twisted...
Go to a library, read Kraus.
C
CBFalconer
krw said:
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.
G
Guest
|
| | : > In article <[email protected]>,
|
| : >> 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 has *ever* complained about this before.
The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear that you have
quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It doesn't matter if
the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is misleading.
| | : > In article <[email protected]>,
|
| : >> 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 has *ever* complained about this before.
The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear that you have
quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It doesn't matter if
the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is misleading.
G
Guest
|
|
| |
| [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.
|
| |
| [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.