Good reply Skipp!
We have had our disagreements in the past, but I totally agree with you on
this one.
Regards,
Dennis O.
In a message dated 3/20/03 1:38:24 AM Central Standard Time,
nospam4me@juno.com writes:
> Subj:[Amps] Dealing with the manure
To: <amps@contesting.com>
> Date:3/20/03 1:38:24 AM Central Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:nospam4me@juno.com";>nospam4me@juno.com</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:amps@contesting.com";>amps@contesting.com</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> I was truly disappointed to read Rogers previous
> reply post to amps about the Palomar 300a Amp.
> -
> [paste]
> > Roger D. Johnson n1rj at pivot.net
> > Perhaps you would care to furnish us with
> > the FCC ID number of this amplifier. Without
> > one, it's not legal for use anywhere in the
> > HF spectrum! 73, Roger
> -
> Which of course is not accurate...
> I Emailed him direct to let him know the Palomar
> 300a Amplifier I described (as requested via an
> amps posting) did not have, nor require an FCC
> ID at the time of mfgr.
> I also told him he acted like a horses ass.
> -
> Still not good enough, he then pesters me to
> prove/state when it was made; of which I (nicely)
> replied the 1970's. One would think we're
> near the end of this circus show.
> -
> Now I receive the below post from Roger which
> again proves to me that Roger is a first class
> Jackass.
> -
> I get frustrated dealing with time wasting
> buffoons like Roger who spout without first
> asking the proper questions.
> -
> With a little luck, this will probably be my last
> post to Amps about Roger's Emails to me.
> -
> Roger, I don't care that you can't find ads for
> various amplifiers in your old ham mags, nor
> do I care about your opinions of the Palomar or
> any other amplifier.
> -
> I have previously posted the merits and
> highlights of the Palomar design on amps.
> It just takes a web browser to find that
> post and the follow up comments.
> -
> As far as I know, the original Palomar 300a
> and its mfgr have been out of business for
> decades. It's my opinion the current solid
> state Palomar amplifiers sold are trading
> only on the original name of Palomar. I
> don't have any, nor do I care to debate or
> talk about their legality in any class of
> radio service.
> -
> Roger doesn't mention what diagrams he
> found on the web, nor has he provided little
> if anything but cannon fodder in the
> technical dept.
> -
> A number of Amps Members are not Hams,
> nor is a License a requirement to post on amps.
> Just a desire to read, post and hopefully
> learn something.
> -
> I do not care to waste additional time on
> Roger's closed minded stupidity. I've
> found a small very disappointing segment
> of Amateurs who act like Roger and I'm
> glad I don't have to regularly associate
> or deal with them.
> -
> skipp
> -
> [paste in Roger's original Email text]
> You seem to be a bit touchy about the subject, Skip. I can't
> find any advertisments for the amp in the ham magazines of
> that era. Based on the schematic I found on the web, I think
> it's a piece of CB crap that Palomar is trying to pass off as
> ham gear by adding a bandswitch. BTW, I notice a conspicuous
> lack of callsign on your postings. Are you one of those CB
> criminals? It would go a long way towards explaining your
> possession of that crappy amplifier!
> Roger
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
|