My and everybody elses problem is: why must we very innocent hams suffer
from your personal fights? It is your personal business and what have I to
do with it?
de Hans
----------
>Från: measures <measures@vcnet.com>
>Ämne: Re: SV: [AMPS] cabin fever
>Datum: fre 11 feb 2000 05.46
>
>
>>
>?? Warning: around 10% of this post is about amplifier theory. The
>rest is pretty much of a personal nature that explains what has been
>going on here for the last couple of years. If you are offended by
>personal stuff, please stop reading here. thanks.
>
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>? Hash is an illegal drug, Hans.
>
>>It's typical of Americans to be obnoxious and self-righteous.
>
>It's typical of Wikings to over imbibe and raise Hell -- Way better than
>even Americans. It is widely known that Americans are about 4.5 db short
>of Wikings when it comes to imbibing. .
>
>>Most of them
>>are from the younger generation. And, they are cowards. It's easy to insult
>>someone when someone is hiding behind a keyboard several hundred miles
>>away.
>
>Insulting usually indicates that a person is losing.
>
>>I think I started this flame war but that wasn't my intent. I just
>>thought that it was humorous that someone with a juno address had "nospam"
>>in it. Some people saw that as an opportunity to flame someone. I'm sorry
>>that I brought that subject up, now.
>
>Don't be sorry. I thought it was delightful. Congrats.
>>
>>At 11:33 PM 2/10/00 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>Gosh Rich. What has your personal life to do with technical discussions on
>>a net aimed at amps lovers?
>
>Not much. Why read stuff you don't enjoy, Hans? Do you enjoy kvetching
>about stuff you just hate to read?
>The personal element was retty much started by *QST* Magazine. In the
>Fall of 1994, the League wrote me a letter to see if I would or could
>write another QST article. I had another article in my head, so I phoned
>Paul Pagel and outlined what I had in mind. Paul said to send him a
>manuscript. I did this. The QST Staff accepted it for publication.
>"The Nearly Perfect Amplifier" was published in January, 1994. My guess
>is that two major QST advertisers got plenty pissed:. Ameritron/MFJ
>(Charles Thomas Rauch, Jr.) and Dick Ehrhorn. On page 72 in the
>September, 1994 issue, QST published a Technical Topics column that Paul
>Pagel had nothing to do with. The Nearly Perfect Amplifier was critiqued
>by six people. In this critique, Mr. Rauch managed to put himself on his
>list of recognized amplifier "experts". Rauch also made the following
>statement as to why there was essentially no difference between a
>copper-wire L-supp and a resistance-wire L-supp.
>. "The coil's reactance increases with frequency, and at VHF most of the
>signal path is through the resistor. " (Mr. Rauch, p.72 9/94 QST) In
>fact, in typical suppressors, at the anode-resonant freq, there are
>pretty much equal currents in L-supp and R-supp . .
>In the October, 1994 issue, Ameritron/MFJ had over 30 full pages of
>advertisements in QST.
>
>>What are your motives behind all your
>>intellectual quarrels that you love so much?
>>
>My pet peeve is wannabe famous guys who propagate bum dope, old wives'
>tales, and other feculence. . . .
>
>>By the way, I would like to know the background of this amps reflector. Who
>>started it? Why? Who takes care of it?
>
>Bill Fisher is the owner. In the beginning, he groused a bit about my
>crocodillian debating procedures..
>
>> I am a newcomer to this reflector and
>>I understand there is a lot that we babies with our red cheeks and blue eyes
>>ought to know. What is the background behind those aggresive messages? What
>>has happened in the past?
>
>What went on here started on a Usenet Newsgroup. It began with an
>e-mail from a friend who said that Rauch was on the
>rec.radio.amateur.homebrew NG saying a lot of negative things about me
>and my simply-awful QST articles. . I subscribed, read what Rauch had
>been saying, and a debate ensued. Fortunately, I received some valuable
>tips from a ham in New York City named John Ferebee who informed me about
>Rauch & groupies' Internet debating techniques.
>The debate was a handfull. Rauch's groupies were a pretty effective
>time-sapper. After only about a month, the denouement suddenly appeared
>out of nowhere. , Rauch proposed a mathematical problem (involving AC
>Circuit Analysis) which Disproved his case. Even though he promptly
>cancelled this post, Will , K6NDV had already archived the post, so it
>was too late to save Rauch's bacon. . // Congrats to Will for having
>the foresight to maintain the archive. Will's insightful archive proved
>to be the key to chopping down Rauch's tree. // . I retrieved the
>post from Will's archive, worked Rauch's proposed problem and posted the
>misfortunate results. Rauch stonewalled me a half-dozen times, never
>even acknowledging that he had posted it. .It was time to light up a
>Monica Corona cigar. Things went downhill rapidly when Wes posted his
>infamous measurements demonstrating that resistance-wire suppressors
>have c. a 41% advantage in VHF-Q. . . Shortly thereafter, Rauch changed
>the name he was using on the NG from Tom to Charles and vanished.
>Eventually, I received a tip from one of Rauch's one-time friends that he
>was up to his old tricks on AMPS. I showed up and war broke out. True,
>a lot of guys hated the warring - but is was never boring.
>
>Who could have guessed that there is an Excellent reason to archive a
>Usenet debate?.
>>
>cheers, Hans
>
>- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
----------
>Från: measures <measures@vcnet.com>
>Kopia: "AMPS" <amps@contesting.com>
>Ämne: Re: SV: [AMPS] cabin fever
>Datum: fre 11 feb 2000 05.46
>
>
>>
>?? Warning: around 10% of this post is about amplifier theory. The
>rest is pretty much of a personal nature that explains what has been
>going on here for the last couple of years. If you are offended by
>personal stuff, please stop reading here. thanks.
>
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>? Hash is an illegal drug, Hans.
>
>>It's typical of Americans to be obnoxious and self-righteous.
>
>It's typical of Wikings to over imbibe and raise Hell -- Way better than
>even Americans. It is widely known that Americans are about 4.5 db short
>of Wikings when it comes to imbibing. .
>
>>Most of them
>>are from the younger generation. And, they are cowards. It's easy to insult
>>someone when someone is hiding behind a keyboard several hundred miles
>>away.
>
>Insulting usually indicates that a person is losing.
>
>>I think I started this flame war but that wasn't my intent. I just
>>thought that it was humorous that someone with a juno address had "nospam"
>>in it. Some people saw that as an opportunity to flame someone. I'm sorry
>>that I brought that subject up, now.
>
>Don't be sorry. I thought it was delightful. Congrats.
>>
>>At 11:33 PM 2/10/00 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>Gosh Rich. What has your personal life to do with technical discussions on
>>a net aimed at amps lovers?
>
>Not much. Why read stuff you don't enjoy, Hans? Do you enjoy kvetching
>about stuff you just hate to read?
>The personal element was retty much started by *QST* Magazine. In the
>Fall of 1994, the League wrote me a letter to see if I would or could
>write another QST article. I had another article in my head, so I phoned
>Paul Pagel and outlined what I had in mind. Paul said to send him a
>manuscript. I did this. The QST Staff accepted it for publication.
>"The Nearly Perfect Amplifier" was published in January, 1994. My guess
>is that two major QST advertisers got plenty pissed:. Ameritron/MFJ
>(Charles Thomas Rauch, Jr.) and Dick Ehrhorn. On page 72 in the
>September, 1994 issue, QST published a Technical Topics column that Paul
>Pagel had nothing to do with. The Nearly Perfect Amplifier was critiqued
>by six people. In this critique, Mr. Rauch managed to put himself on his
>list of recognized amplifier "experts". Rauch also made the following
>statement as to why there was essentially no difference between a
>copper-wire L-supp and a resistance-wire L-supp.
>. "The coil's reactance increases with frequency, and at VHF most of the
>signal path is through the resistor. " (Mr. Rauch, p.72 9/94 QST) In
>fact, in typical suppressors, at the anode-resonant freq, there are
>pretty much equal currents in L-supp and R-supp . .
>In the October, 1994 issue, Ameritron/MFJ had over 30 full pages of
>advertisements in QST.
>
>>What are your motives behind all your
>>intellectual quarrels that you love so much?
>>
>My pet peeve is wannabe famous guys who propagate bum dope, old wives'
>tales, and other feculence. . . .
>
>>By the way, I would like to know the background of this amps reflector. Who
>>started it? Why? Who takes care of it?
>
>Bill Fisher is the owner. In the beginning, he groused a bit about my
>crocodillian debating procedures..
>
>> I am a newcomer to this reflector and
>>I understand there is a lot that we babies with our red cheeks and blue eyes
>>ought to know. What is the background behind those aggresive messages? What
>>has happened in the past?
>
>What went on here started on a Usenet Newsgroup. It began with an
>e-mail from a friend who said that Rauch was on the
>rec.radio.amateur.homebrew NG saying a lot of negative things about me
>and my simply-awful QST articles. . I subscribed, read what Rauch had
>been saying, and a debate ensued. Fortunately, I received some valuable
>tips from a ham in New York City named John Ferebee who informed me about
>Rauch & groupies' Internet debating techniques.
>The debate was a handfull. Rauch's groupies were a pretty effective
>time-sapper. After only about a month, the denouement suddenly appeared
>out of nowhere. , Rauch proposed a mathematical problem (involving AC
>Circuit Analysis) which Disproved his case. Even though he promptly
>cancelled this post, Will , K6NDV had already archived the post, so it
>was too late to save Rauch's bacon. . // Congrats to Will for having
>the foresight to maintain the archive. Will's insightful archive proved
>to be the key to chopping down Rauch's tree. // . I retrieved the
>post from Will's archive, worked Rauch's proposed problem and posted the
>misfortunate results. Rauch stonewalled me a half-dozen times, never
>even acknowledging that he had posted it. .It was time to light up a
>Monica Corona cigar. Things went downhill rapidly when Wes posted his
>infamous measurements demonstrating that resistance-wire suppressors
>have c. a 41% advantage in VHF-Q. . . Shortly thereafter, Rauch changed
>the name he was using on the NG from Tom to Charles and vanished.
>Eventually, I received a tip from one of Rauch's one-time friends that he
>was up to his old tricks on AMPS. I showed up and war broke out. True,
>a lot of guys hated the warring - but is was never boring.
>
>Who could have guessed that there is an Excellent reason to archive a
>Usenet debate?.
>>
>cheers, Hans
>
>- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|