Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+RE\:\s+No\s+More\s+Nice\s+Guy\?\s+$was\s+BPL\s+video\s+FAQs$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+RE\:\s+No\s+More\s+Nice\s+Guy\?\s+$was\s+BPL\s+video\s+FAQs$\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] RE: No More Nice Guy? (was BPL video FAQs) (score: 1): Author: eedwards at oppd.com (EDWARDS, EDDIE J); Date: Mon Aug 11 12:26:57 2003; == This may've already been pointed out, but I think one proponent said "their members" (i.e. UTC members) haven't reported any BPL interference complaints to the UPLC organization. In "Clintonese" t; /archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00070.html (7,398 bytes)
2. [RFI] RE: No More Nice Guy? (was BPL video FAQs) (score: 1): Author: W4EF at dellroy.com (Michael Tope); Date: Mon Aug 11 13:24:44 2003; Many of the industry comments are filled with technical hubris. In some cases it involves exaggeration, in other cases it involves outright falsehoods. It would not surprise me if this pattern of tru; /archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00071.html (8,413 bytes)
3. [RFI] RE: No More Nice Guy? (was BPL video FAQs) (score: 1): Author: w1rfi at arrl.org (Hare,Ed, W1RFI); Date: Mon Aug 11 16:27:39 2003; The sole claims to the lack of interference problems are that they comply with Part 15 (Part 15 = S9 noise on HF, under typical circumstances) and that they have had no reports of interference. The; /archives//html/RFI/2003-08/msg00073.html (10,392 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]