Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Blown TL922A... What to do?

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Blown TL922A... What to do?
From: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:42:11 -0700
>
>
>> Autopsies are still dependant on interpretation and 
>> imagination as to causes of damage.
>
>Speaking of which,  Rich was to have rcvd some tubes
>for just that purpose on the weekend.  Did I miss the
>results while I was out pouting?
>
>Rich keeps wanting to know who designed the "origianal"
>AL-80.  I presume the implication is that Tom did.  So
>what?
>
Dennis Had originally owned Ameritron.  

>I also asked Rich to send me the e-mail to which he keeps
>referring from sometime in 1996.  All I wanted to read
>was the ONE post to which he continues to refer where
>Tom made some great ERROR,  per Rich. 
>
The biggie was the 28-November post he tried to cancel.  The cancelation 
worked with DejaNews.  It did not work with Wil's archive - so I was able 
to retrieve the cancelled post.  Rauch has consistently stonewalled the 
subject ever since.  

>But,  what I rcvd was enough reading material to last
>from now into next year sometime -- you wouldn't believe
>how many e-mails,  and all the headers and indentations
>as they overran the formats of the various "old" email
>programs being used in those days,  etc.!  

It is undoubtedly a whopper.  

>I do not want
>to read all this same stuff we read to day,  as it was
>also expressed 4 years ago.  All I wanted was the ONE
>key problem point to which Rich continually berates
>at Tom!

28-Nov. is it.  Try asking Tom why he cancelled.  
>
>So, I am no better off than before in my attempt to really
>understand what Rich continually refers to.  If it is some
>aura,  spread out across months of back and forth e-mails,
>that will do me,  at least,  absolutely no benefit.
>
>As to the format of the debate today,  Rich ALWAYS includes
>all the preceding threat re-posts,  or what ever they are called,
>with usually only a few cryptic words somewhere along the
>long,  long way,  or right at the very end!!
>
>That is why this thread on this reflector can become so 
>confounded irritating!!  R-sup vs. Rs vs. Q is/is not important,
>vs. ............ SO WHAT are your attempting to achieve,  Rich????
>
>To completely and absolutely "trash" Tom R. ???  If so,
>for what possible useful to the world reason?  I guess
>just for your own ego purpose ......
>
For a long time, Tom tried to get me to debate him on the Internet.  

cheers, Jim.....

-  Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.  
end


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>