On Sep 20, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Mike((W5UC)) & Kathy((K5MWH)) wrote:
I got so tired of the long term kicking of dead horses that I just started going through my unread mail and automatically clicking AMPs mail as read without opening it or looking at the subject. I should have left long before I did. When I saw the announcement about this reflector, I joined it and unsubscribed to AMPS, then deleted all AMPS messages and the AMPS mailbox from my system. God knows that I enjoy a little fun & BS, but I was having trouble finding boots with high enough tops.
Mike -- In the Fall of 1996, when I accepted W8JI's challenge to debate him about parasites on the Internet on rec.amateur- radio.homebrew, I received an e-mail from a Ham in NYC advising me of Rauch's SOP during a debate. Examples: Bluster; bullying; the incredible word avalanche; use of lap-dogs to concur with his every utterance, and to nip at his opponent; and also never admitting to a technical misstep. In a nutshell: hubris.
The defense for word avalanches was to read as far as the first technical misstep, stop, delete the rest, concentrate on Rauch's misstep and hang on to it as long as possible before moving on. This procedure seemed to work and in less than two months the debate was pretty much over, or so I thought until I got word from Carl, KM1H, informing me that the Rauchian camp had a brand new playground - the AMPS reflector/mailing-list - and this time it had a moderator/censor to protect Tom. I subscribed to AMPS and within hours I received a telephone call from the moderatpr/censor informing me that I would not be allowed to do to Mr. Rauch what I had just done to him on rec.amateur-radio.homebrew. I found this statement amusing because the worst damage to Mr. Rauch had been done by N7WS' Hewlett-Packard Model 4191A RF Impedance Analyzer.
Editorial -- IMO, Mr. Rauch sincerely believes that a debate is not decided until one of the combatants Publically admits error. Thus, my guess is that Tom will never admit that Ni-Cr (resistance- wire) alloys do not have reverse skin-effect at HF, that VHF-resonant circuits can ring, and that the only reason to use resistance-wire in a R/L VHF suppressor is to increase its dissipative ability on 10m/ 12m - thereby reducing its Q & Rp at 100MHz Without toasting R-supp. Alas.
cheers, Mike
73,
Mike, W5UC
From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:ham_amplifiers@...] On Behalf Of R L Measures
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:13 PM
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Subject: Re: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Moderator
On Sep 20, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Mike((W5UC)) & Kathy((K5MWH)) wrote:
The absence of secret moderators is a blessing. Now if we can just
avoid month long discussions about the miniscule merits of harmonic
suppressors.
The are parasitic oscillation suppressors but no harmonic
suppressors. Did you avoid discussions about the latter?
Pentalabs wrote:
To thrive, like a TV soap opera, a discussion group needs a
protagonist and an antagonist. Tom and yours truly are such. Without
Tom, my guess is that there will be a lot less entertainment value.
R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734
r@...
R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734
r@...
