I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise
ratio. One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding
on him about it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can
argue with the lamers.

Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message ...

I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise ratio.
One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding on him about
it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can argue with the
lamers.

Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.

The current activity on rraa shows that there are people out there reading
the group postings. It could once again become an informative group if some
new topics could be introduced.

On 11/4/2014 8:01 PM, rickman wrote:
I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise
ratio. One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding
on him about it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can
argue with the lamers.

Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.


I agree with Brian. If people would stop encouraging (replying to) him,
the S/N ratio would significantly decrease.

Unfortunately, there are a few who want to encourage him. I don't mind
if people talk *about* him - but people should stop responding to him.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/4/2014 9:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:01 PM, rickman wrote:
I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise
ratio. One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding
on him about it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can
argue with the lamers.

Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.


I agree with Brian. If people would stop encouraging (replying to) him,
the S/N ratio would significantly decrease.

Unfortunately, there are a few who want to encourage him. I don't mind
if people talk *about* him - but people should stop responding to him.

Yeah, but those people like the drama as much as Gareth.

I guess this group is just done for.

--

Rick

On 11/4/2014 10:41 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/4/2014 9:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:01 PM, rickman wrote:
I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise
ratio. One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding
on him about it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can
argue with the lamers.

Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.


I agree with Brian. If people would stop encouraging (replying to) him,
the S/N ratio would significantly decrease.

Unfortunately, there are a few who want to encourage him. I don't mind
if people talk *about* him - but people should stop responding to him.

Yeah, but those people like the drama as much as Gareth.

I guess this group is just done for.


I wouldn't say so so quickly; just get people to stop responding to Big G.

BTW - please let me know when the ukram vote comes up. I'm through with
the know-it-alls in uknnc.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:38:55 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Unfortunately, there are a few who want to encourage him. I don't mind
if people talk *about* him - but people should stop responding to him.

I tried a little experiment to confirm my suspicions. I followed up
with a reply to one of Gareth's assertions that agreed with him, and
backed it up with a few contrived examples. I wanted to see what
would happen if someone actually agreed with him. Predictably, I was
ignored by Gareth, which demonstrates that he's only interested in
starting and continuing an arguement. The endless banter revolving
around Gareth also demonstrates that the more trivial the topic, the
more attention it attracts:

My appologies for being part of the problem, but it was an experiment
that I just couldn't resist trying.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:12:05 -0800, "Wayne"
wrote:

The current activity on rraa shows that there are people out there reading
the group postings. It could once again become an informative group if some
new topics could be introduced.

I'm not so sure. I was following the discussion on 60KHz loop
antennas with great interest, until it just faded away into several
useless diversions. It should have gone into personal experiences,
shielded vs unshielded loops, SPICE models (even if they are not
totally accurate), theory of operation, performance tests,
construction hints, etc. 46 messages by 9 individuals. For a topic
that should easily have been considered a new and informative topic,
it didn't attract 1/10th the attention of Gareth's muddled science
fiction antenna theory. No, I don't think picking a good topic is
going to help much. Self control might be more useful.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 22:41:56 -0500, rickman wrote:

I guess this group is just done for.

Not so fast. The two postings on your 60KHz loop question by Wim
(PA3DJS) were well worth reading and certainly informative. I had no
idea how to calculate the H field until he provided an example. Don't
throw out the few good answers just because you dislike having to wade
through a mountain of garbage.


"At the bottom of every dumpster is a gem. It's only a question of
how much garbage you're willing to sift through trying to find it".
(Me about 1995).
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"rickman" wrote in message
...
I think this group can be written off as too low a signal to noise ratio.
One guy posts some drivel and a bunch of lamers start pounding on him about
it. The funny thing is they guy is posting just so he can argue with the
lamers.
Everyone can see what is going on, but this is what passes for fun in
r.r.a.a.

If this is your attempt to make an ad hominem attack on me, then you
are quite wrong, but perhaps you are trying to rationalise your own
abuse by claiming that I seek to be part of it?

If that is the case, then you need to grow up and take responsibility
for your own infantile outbursts.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He is posting to cause disruption wreck the group, which is what he has
nearly done.

You are the only person posting abuse, as above. You repeatedly dive into
these threads without any technical nous, only to post abuse.

Why do you behave like that, and so intensely of late? Is it because
you made a fool of yourself with respect to Maxwell's Equations and
are desperately creating a smokescreen?

If you all just blank him, don't respond to him, let him rant away to
himself, he will eventually move on. He came here as he wasn't getting the
attention he craves in uk.r.a, where he is being shunned.

Once again, you rant one of your mantras which are completely untrue.