Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[Amps] Dealing with the manure

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [Amps] Dealing with the manure
From: nospam4me at juno.com (skipp isaham)
Date: Thu Mar 20 02:36:38 2003
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>