Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] 3CX1500A7 versus 3CPX1500 TSPA

To: <Gudguyham@aol.com>, <david.kirkby@onetel.net>,<amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] 3CX1500A7 versus 3CPX1500 TSPA
From: "Robert B. Bonner" <rbonner@qro.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:09:30 -0600
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
I didn't post that post to escalate, but terminate the thread.

 

Do I have to pop you to Lou?  We really don't have to get the last word in
edgewise do we?  Something to think about. We never get the last word in
with our wives, so we have to take it out on our friends?

 

NAW.

 

  _____  

From: Gudguyham@aol.com [mailto:Gudguyham@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:51 PM
To: rbonner@qro.com; david.kirkby@onetel.net; amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] 3CX1500A7 versus 3CPX1500 TSPA

 

In a message dated 1/23/2007 2:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rbonner@qro.com writes:

What's stuck up your ass Kirkby?

The differences between all versions of the tube was covered at least twenty
times here in the last week. Were you on vacation?

Worthy Exchequer please add Lou's 3CPX1500A7's to the list of wiring a plug
on a line cord and parasitic suppressors

Bob, I think you said it all.  I wanted to put an end to the thread by
reporting the tubes have been sold, but he insists on hammering away at it.
Parasitic suppressors got another user booted off the reflector.  I don't
want this to go to that degree.  Lets just drop it NOW!  Lou

_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

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