It's been a long, long time...
EricBabula
from RCC - sorry about that, if you care. If you're happy about that,
sorry I'm back! Well, not really sorry.
I just started reading RCC on and off, again, and remembered all the
fun discussions we used to have. And I kinda miss it!! Looks like
there might be a couple regulars from years past, still hanging
around! But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
I'm reading on groups.google.com, and am not seeing very much traffic
here. I lost my News Feed (Road Runner/Time Warner Cable in WI doesn't
support Newsgroups anymore). I get just a few new posts a week on
Google Groups - that can't be, can it? Anyway - I think I'd like to
find a new News Feed service (FREE if possible), and a Newsreader (I
used to use XNews and liked it - will have to see if that still
works). Is Tera News (Free) still the way others have gone, in order
to get all the RCC posts, including
alt.binaries.pictures.numismatic??? Any other suggestions?
Anyway - so I really haven't done much of anything with coins since I
"left" reading and contributing to RCC. I have big plans to image all
my coins some day, but never seem to get to that. The "Honey-Do" list
never seems to get smaller, no matter how many things I cross off!!
And, the kids are keeping us so busy - the only free time we really
have is Friday nights. Really, the only coin-related thing I've done
is: I've just recently started reading "Crime of 1873 - The Comstock
Connection" - about the Comstock silver mines, and the history leading
up to the creation of the Trade and Morgan Dollars. If anyone recalls,
I tend to be interested in Morgan Dollars above most coins, for
whatever reason. Maybe it's my love of the Wild, Wild West as a youth.
Maybe it's the design of Lady Liberty (not particularly attractive,
but nicely designed) and the Eagle. Maybe it's because I love big,
heavy, shiny silver! I don't know. I do love other coins, too. I have
only collected U.S. coins, though, I do have some coins from other
areas of the world - mostly as gifts from others.
Anywhoo, I'm hoping to be back to RCC, at least on a part-time basis.
If anyone has suggestions on a good, reliable News Feed that'll get me
all the RCC and ABPM posts, I'd much appreciate it! I feel like I'm
missing a ton, here on Google Groups.
Have a Great Day!!!
Eric Babula
Mr. Jaggers
> Hello again, everyone! Yes, I've been on an extended leave of absence
> from RCC - sorry about that, if you care. If you're happy about that,
> sorry I'm back! Well, not really sorry.
>
> I just started reading RCC on and off, again, and remembered all the
> fun discussions we used to have. And I kinda miss it!! Looks like
> there might be a couple regulars from years past, still hanging
> around! But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
Eric, welcome back! I hope this will be the first of many nouveau posts on
your part.
Some of the names on rcc have changed, the range of personalities has not.
I see that you have already been greeted by one of our other regular
members, so I'll spare you the formalities.
It's probably true that coin discussions in these parts have diminished over
the years, which is to be expected, what with changing interests and the
competition from other coin boards. We occasionally drift off into
unrelated topics, which always brings lurkers out of the woodwork,
self-righteously wagging their tongues about how we never talk coins any
more. But, you'll always find someone who will come forward and talk coins,
given a topic.
James the Occasional Numismatist
EricBabula
<nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> EricBabula wrote:
> > Hello again, everyone! Yes, I've been on an extended leave of absence
> > from RCC - sorry about that, if you care. If you're happy about that,
> > sorry I'm back! Well, not really sorry.
>
> > I just started reading RCC on and off, again, and remembered all the
> > fun discussions we used to have. And I kinda miss it!! Looks like
> > there might be a couple regulars from years past, still hanging
> > around! But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
>
> You are a boring twat with no life. Just because you live a boring
> life doesn't mean we have to hear about it. Go back to your trailer
> park and watch American Idol you middle aged freak.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Non - (if that's your real name) :-P
You're funny.
Reid Goldsborough
> But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
RCC is a lot quieter than it has ever been, probably since shortly after
its creation. There's so little traffic relatively speaking that for the
most part dealers as well as collectors don't even bother posting For
Sale messages here anymore. The two guys who used to post news stories
about coins that they found on the Net, a really good source of on-topic
content, don't bother doing that here anymore either. A lot of other
really smart coin people have left too, including some who were here for
a long time.
The reasons are as you'd expect, mostly a continued intensification of
previous trends, which affects all newsgroups, though some more than
others. I'd list them this way in terms of importance: 1) Excessive
chitcat. Here this manifests itself through a handful of people who
appear to have lots of time on their hands or who seem to approach this
group as their primary social outlet in life and who divert nearly every
discussion away from coins to whatever pops in their heads at that
moment, a group that feeds on one another while driving lots of other
people away, 2) Anonymous flaming. A small but disproportionately loud
group seeks every opportunity to show how big and bold they are behind
their anonymous handles, 3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about
all the major ISPs, in large part a result of the previous two phenomena
and the effect they've had on traffic. Google Groups though is still a
very viable workaround here. I don't know much about the relative merits
of the various free newservers at this moment (it's always changing),
but I use Altopia (www.altopia.com), which starts at $6/month. 4) The
other online discussion groups and blogs about coins that are moderated
and thus reign in libertarian excess, significantly reducing the
negative effects of excessive chitchat and anonymous flaming.
Still, as you're finding, there are still nuggets to be found here. You
just have to pan harder for them these days, and they're fewer and
farther between. The nuggets are mostly at the very beginning of
threads, before they've been swept into irrelevance by the chitchat,
mostly, and the flaming.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Alan Bruns
dc4f3b...@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> I think I'd like to
> find a new News Feed service (FREE if possible), and a Newsreader (I
> used to use XNews and liked it - will have to see if that still
> works). Is Tera News (Free) still the way others have gone, in order
> to get all the RCC posts, including
> alt.binaries.pictures.numismatic??? Any other suggestions?
>
XNews still works just fine; certainly a lot better than Google for what I
need. I've got my copy set up to read News from AIOE (mostly) and Eternal
September (as a backup). They're both free, but neither carries abpn.
Most folks have adapted to the general loss of binary newsgroup coverage by
simply posting photos to one of the free sites dedicated to that purpose
and posting links to them here. Tera News wants $3.95 to set up an account
(in order to post), but so far I don't see any good reason to spend even
that small amount.
Welcome back... (I've been lurking a long time - bought some IH cents from
you a while back.)
-Alan Bruns
Scurvy Dog
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lihb6....@news.alt.net...
> A lot of other really smart coin people have left too, including some who
> were here for a long time.
Unfortunately you aren't among them...
Reid Goldsborough
4) The > other online discussion groups and blogs about coins that are
moderated
> and thus reign in libertarian excess, significantly reducing the
> negative effects of excessive chitchat and anonymous flaming.
This should have read rein in. Again. <g>
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/8/2010 8:12 AM, EricBabula wrote:
>
>> But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
>
> RCC is a lot quieter than it has ever been, probably since shortly
> after its creation. There's so little traffic relatively speaking
> that for the most part dealers as well as collectors don't even
> bother posting For Sale messages here anymore. The two guys who used
> to post news stories about coins that they found on the Net, a really
> good source of on-topic content, don't bother doing that here anymore
> either. A lot of other really smart coin people have left too,
> including some who were here for a long time.
>
> The reasons are as you'd expect, mostly a continued intensification of
> previous trends, which affects all newsgroups, though some more than
> others. I'd list them this way in terms of importance:
[appropriate snips made in following]
1) Excessive chitchat [misspelling corrected].
2) Anonymous flaming.
3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about all the major ISPs.
#3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you
to determine what is "excessive"?
James the Chitchatter
Farmer Dave
I thought this was a coin group and not an Inglish class!!
Mr. Jaggers
> On 4/8/2010 11:35 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> 1) Excessive chitchat [misspelling corrected].
>>
>> 2) Anonymous flaming.
>>
>> 3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about all the major ISPs.
>>
>> #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have
>> left permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH
>> are you to determine what is "excessive"?
>
> popularity, and the main reasons that Usenet popularity has fallen so
> precipitously over the past half decade or so, I'd say, are excessive
> chitchat and anonymous flaming and the availability of other types of
> online forums that aren't beset to the same extent by these problems.
You obviously haven't read Facebook lately.
> All this is according to my observations, but others have observed
> likewise. It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more
> serious a problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the
> more likely reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though
> it's not characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of
> flaming.
Let's see, what are in the process of doing...could it be...taking up verbal
space? Why is yours OK, but mine is not?
>> James the Chitchatter
>
> You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone
> here to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and
> more likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to
> chat about.
I can't help it if I get here before you do.
> You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a
> long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right
> to offer opinion, which is what this is, a response to an observation
> of the original poster in this thread. This is a ... discussion. But I've
> put no quantitative qualifier on "excessive." It's subjective. Again,
> in my view, according to my observations, the chitchat here is excessive.
> Others may feel differently, and that's their right too, of course.
> You obviously feel differently. Some significant percentage of those
> who have left this newsgroup in significant numbers, I would say, don't.
> There are other reasons too that people leave, external factors. I'm
> largely a lurker here, these days, but if I had to point to one cause
> above all others for this group's decline, I'd say it's the convulsion
> of unrestrained and largely unthinking off-topic chatter, the
> profligate paroxysm of prattle by a small group of those here about
> anything and everything unrelated to coins. That was fun.
Hmm, why did the name William Safire suddenly pop into mind?
Anyway, I have previously observed that my own coin-related posts of late
have garnered extremely limited participation by either the regulars or the
unseen and unknowable army of lurkers out there. You're certainly welcome
to initiate some numismatic threads of your own and see if you can do any
better.
> Some diversion is only human nature, as I said earlier. This is a
> discussion group, after all, and people go off on tangents. But it all
> has to do with signal to noise, with whether or not there's enough
> that's engaging to make any given online discussion group worth
> returning to. And the unfortunate reality, the undeniable reality, is
> that increasingly people find that this group is not worth returning
> to.
Let me see if I have this straight. Your contributions represent signal,
while mine represent noise, is that about it?
> Discussion of an online group's internal dynamics ... common topic. It
> too can become excessive. But I'm not going to try to quantify that
> either.
It is my sole opinion that discussion of an online group's internal dynamics
just became excessive with the above sentence. But WTH am I to try to
define that adjective? It would just take up more verbal space. Besides,
Mirriam-Webster can do it so much better than I.
James the Reference Librarian
Mr. Jaggers
It *is* a coin group. What wudja like to talk about, coin-wise (the Sainted
Mrs. Swan is probably turning in her grave over that last sentence)?
James the Anglais
Jud
>
> It *is* a coin group. What wudja like to talk about, coin-wise (the Sainted
> Mrs. Swan is probably turning in her grave over that last sentence)?
>
> James the Anglais
Rolling because of the spelling, punctuation or the grammar? Why for
didja wanna speak thusly?
Jud -My grammar is my mother's mother.
EricBabula
> EricBabula <mys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2caddeb9-3d8c-4b11-bb2c-
Alan - Thanks for the info about AIOE and Eternal September. I'll have
to check them out, this weekend.
Really? You bought IHCs from me? Thank you! Hope they were ok - I
can't remember what they were.
I was actually thinking I might want to downsize some of my duplicates
and misc coins I don't really have a place for. Of course, I have to
find time to image them, and get the ebay listings created. Has anyone
figured out how to squeeze in an extra 2 or 3 hours per day? I could
use it!
Eric Babula
Jud
wrote:
> Let me show you, as an example. I'll start a new thread, later today
> probably, on a coin type I collect. Watch all the enthusiastic comments
> and curious questions it generates.
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
OK everybody! Start collecting what Reid collects. It is obvious that
those are the ONLY coins to collect, the only ones that are
interesting. Hey! Maybe we can drive up the prices with demand so that
Reid can come down from his lofty perch and start collecting modern
(YIKES) US coins, which apparently nobody is interested in.
Jud -Tongue in Cheek-
mazorj
> On 4/8/2010 11:35 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) Anonymous flaming.
>>
>> 3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about all the major ISPs.
>>
>> #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
>> permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are
>> you
>> to determine what is "excessive"?
>
> popularity,
Unless you've got data to prove it, I don't accept your flat fiat assertion
that newsgroup posting traffic on the whole has shrunk to any significant
degree, or your conclusion as to why ISPs have dropped newsgroup service.
True, we must have lost some users when the ISPs pulled the plug, but not so
many that I have noticed. Most non-casual newsgoupies seem to have migrated
to other forms of access.
As to maintaining overall volume and interest in UseNet, I occasionally
visit a newsgroup that still gets 300-400 posts a day. I don't subscribe to
it because I can't even come close to staying abreast in it. But whenever I
do look in, I find a wealth of interesting rabbit holes to dive into, some
on topic, some OT. Conversely, I stopped reading a moderated coin forum
operated by a TPG because at least a third of the posts I was reading were
moronic, cheer-leading atta-boys to people posting photos of mediocre coins
in the hope of getting an affirmation that their modest purchase or find is
really a significant, enviable prize. "Hey, Jimbo, that really is a superb
1907 Indian Head cent in G-8 you got there! Wow! Whatta find!
Congratulations!" Moderated groups have their own sources of high
noise-to-signal ratios.
From my viewpoint, the overall newsgroup landscape hasn't changed to any
significant degree since I went online in 1983. IIRC, when Verizon dumped
newsgroups last year it had about 10,000 listed. When I started, the number
was in the low thousands.
Okay, but what about rcc? A year ago I identified a little over 100
"regular" posters here. If this were a moderated group that allowed
absolutely nothing OT, my guess is that by now rcc would be a semi-deserted
Internet ghost town with maybe a handful of hard-core contributors. Average
daily traffic would be paltry and rcc would go the way of most moribund
newsgroups, i.e., devolve into an almost empty echo chamber for its
dwindling in-crowd.
Not being a masochist, I'm not going to do the leg work on the following;
but it would be helpful if we could compare the raw number of on-topic rcc
posts today with your putative Golden Age of years ago. How many regulars
did you have back then posting on topic? More than 100 as we do today? Or
a handful of hard-core types? Absent the data this is all supposition, but
given the presumably larger number of posters now participating, I wouldn't
be surprised if we were to find that there are as many or more on-topic
posts today as there were then. They're just surrounded by more of the
chit-chat that bugs you.
As to the ISPs, what clearly and obviously has shrunk is the relative size
of newsgroup traffic *in relation to* other types of Internet traffic and
related forms of community-based communication. The major ISPs also offer
mobile and cable services, many at obscene mark-ups. Texting, photo/video
sharing, and related Web services have been the growth sectors for social
intercourse at a distance. They generate obscene profits for these ISPs
because hordes of younger customers are attracted by, and will pay for these
new paradigms. UseNet would be too fuddy-duddy for them, even if they were
aware of its existence and that it was free.
OTOH, the older UseNet crowd continues to post but it has a history of not
being willing to pay a premium for newsgroups because they almost always had
been bundled into the monthly charges. So with virtually all new customers
gravitating to the new profit opportunities provided by smart phones and Web
gimmicks and the new online "watering holes" such as FaceBook and Twitter,
UseNet kept its existing base but had lost its long-standing status as a
draw for new customers.
To the bean counters, that made it an expendible net loss. So at some point
the ISPs decided that they could safely dump UseNet newsgroups without
harming their customer growth. Once the first one broke the ice and didn't
suffer any dire consequences, the other majors quickly followed suit.
Newsgroupies bitched and moaned, but few left their established ISPs in
protest. Where elso could you go? And if you still wanted cable and
Internet and mobile phone service, you didn't have any real alternatives
except to bemoan the loss and keep paying for the other services. Which in
turn validated the bean counters' reasoning. If their paying customers
stayed on and switched to getting their UseNet fix from free or inexpensive
third-party providers, that was no skin off their noses. So in the end, the
reason that ISPs dropped newsgroups was not because of any waning interest
from their established users. It was because it saved them money, and
because they could.
> and the main reasons that Usenet popularity has fallen so precipitously
> over the past half decade or so, I'd say, are excessive chitchat and
> anonymous flaming and the availability of other types of online forums
> that aren't beset to the same extent by these problems. All this is
> according to my observations, but others have observed likewise.
I have observed differently here, both in the level of UseNet usage and in
my analysis of why the ISPs have dropped it.
> It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a
> problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely
> reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not
> characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming.
So what are we to make of the fact that as someone who so loudly and
vehemently decries "chit-chat" as a supposedly destructive force, you keep
coming back for more? Your self-serving reasons don't wash. You do it
because you enjoy it and because it serves as an outlet for your ego. Which
sounds pretty much like a chit-chatty, OT reason for you continuing to
participate in rcc.
Your dirty little secret is out, Reid. You love chit-chat - but only when
it's all about you.
People inhabit newsgroups for many reasons other than the nominal purpose
stated in the name and charter. In that 400 post/day newsgroup, I'd
estimate that only 10%-15% of the posts are strictly on-topic to the title
of the group. The others are intelligent, well-informed discussions of
topics that are only indirectly related to the core purpose of the group,
equivalent to, say, rcc discussions of economics and history as they might
indirectly affect numismatics. You almost never hear the core group
complaining about OT in "their" newsgroup, presumably because they also find
value in it. These are the same kinds of posts in rcc that you disdain as
strictly OT but others here find informative and useful in their collecting
pursuits - or just interesting in their own right.
...
> Some diversion is only human nature, as I said earlier. This is a
> discussion group, after all, and people go off on tangents. But it all has
> to do with signal to noise, with whether or not there's enough that's
> engaging to make any given online discussion group worth returning to. And
> the unfortunate reality, the undeniable reality, is that increasingly
> people find that this group is not worth returning to.
Given the example of that 400/day group (and there are plenty of others
functioning at that level despite their low ratio of on-topic material), I
arrive at the exact opposite conclusion. While some may have drifted away
because it requires a little work to sift out the numismatic nuggets, IMO
the only reason that rcc still functions at a critical-mass level is
precisely *because* we have an eclectic group that finds rcc to be the right
mix of on-topic and interesting off-topic material.
> Discussion of an online group's internal dynamics ... common topic. It too
> can become excessive. But I'm not going to try to quantify that either.
Net-kopping posts also can become excessive. You of all people are not in
position to be able to objectively calibrate that point either, but I'm
pretty sure that the group's annoyance threshold for your petulant scolding
is much lower.
Reid Goldsborough
> Unless you've got data to prove it
That's a nonstarter, as you well know. Yes, as I indicated, I have no
"data," but I do have observations and I have read the observations of
others. It couldn't be clearer, based on these observations as well on
what's written about Usenet elsewhere on the Internet, that Usenet is
long past its heyday. No, I'm not "whining" about this. This is not
chitchat either, an absurd contention of yours, and my posts in this
thread, sharing my opinions on the reasons for Usenet's current state,
aren't about me (!), another absurd contention of yours. Your repeated
spelling of Usenet as "UseNet" is also telling. On the positive side,
your analysis of the financial factors involved with ISPs' decision
making regarding Usenet access was right on target, in my view.
Reid Goldsborough
> OK everybody! Start collecting what Reid collects. It is obvious that
> those are the ONLY coins to collect, the only ones that are
> interesting. Hey! Maybe we can drive up the prices with demand so that
> Reid can come down from his lofty perch and start collecting modern
> (YIKES) US coins, which apparently nobody is interested in.
>
> Jud -Tongue in Cheek-
Actually I do collect (some) modern U.S. coins. Just one right now on my
want list, which I've discussed here before, probably too many times:
Presidential dollar that somebody finds that had previously been holed,
to wear as jewelry, on a keychain, etc. I can see maybe three other
people in the world also interested in such a coin. Maybe more.
Nick Knight
>> #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
>> permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you
>> to determine what is "excessive"?
[...]
>It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a
>problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely
>reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not
>characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming.
>> James the Chitchatter
>You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here
>to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more
>likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat
>about.
>You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a
>long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to
>offer opinion,
I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is.
It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their
practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few
that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar
discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow.
I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is
nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't
supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've been
plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps
others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine
on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the time
in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have
appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them
amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to
trips into the weeds.
I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had
temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm
greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on the
history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice. I'll
resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other 2
started as temporaries a couple of times.
WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared
with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each
others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the
justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic
posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets pump
up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value.
In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value
HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except to
say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so
valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the influx
of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past.
Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte
certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course.
Nick
Bruce Remick
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4bc0893c$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing
coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's views
was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard
"pot-kettle...." thing here.
Reid Goldsborough
>I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past.
> Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte
> certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course.
I did very quick lookaround, and just about all the statistics,
analyses, and so on about Usenet are from five to ten years ago. The
Wikipedia entry indicates Usenet traffic is still increasing but it's
largely a result of "massive automated spamming and an increase in the
use of .binaries newsgroups in which large files are often posted
publicly."
Mr. Jaggers
> "Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
[perform mercy snippage here]
> Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing
> coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's
> views was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard
> "pot-kettle...." thing here.
Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two
"lifers" that Nick was talking about. Speaking only for myself, if that be
true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using "de"
when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status.
James de Orange Jumpsuit (actually, that should be d'Orange, but I'd better
not press my luck)
note.boy
I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to
fairly soon. Billy
Mr. Jaggers
OMG, size matters!
James de Yardstick
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hpqjk...@enews6.newsguy.com...
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>> "Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
>
> [perform mercy snippage here]
>
>> Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing
>> coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's
>> views was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard
>> "pot-kettle...." thing here.
>
> Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two
> "lifers" that Nick was talking about. Speaking only for myself, if that
> be true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using
> "de" when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status.
Hard to tell, although I can't imagine Nick putting me in that category
without the obligatory pronouncement to the group. Makes me wonder though
if one is plonked and the plonker doesn't announce it, is it really
official? And might there be a Plonk Purgatory? Woops! I do believe
I've chit-chatted here.
Jud
> Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two
> "lifers" that Nick was talking about. Speaking only for myself, if that be
> true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using "de"
> when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status.
>
> James de Orange Jumpsuit (actually, that should be d'Orange, but I'd better
> not press my luck)
Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel
Brooks History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money'
Jud -who thinks that 'de' means a German website
Nick Knight
04/11/2010
>Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel Brooks
>History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money'
A stetch, but "ok" :)
Tell James to let the "nobility" begin. I find it very odd that there
is/was any doubt about who the 2 most verbose non-coin chit-chatters
are/were (past tense used alternatively, as I'm relatively free from it now,
all with 2 simple killfile entries). I'm sure it's not really that
unobvious as long as you're not too busy proving the point while trying to
justify it.
If the self-declared-and-inflicted crown fits ... I bow to his written
eminence-ness. He will, however, remain mostly invisible to me. I'm not
trying to be nasty. I'm just not at all interested.
Nick
Mr. Jaggers
> In
> <ac5e765b-0d0a-467d...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> on 04/11/2010 at 09:47 AM, Jud <numis...@aol.com> said:
>
>> Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel
>> Brooks History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money'
>
> A stetch, but "ok" :)
>
> Tell James to let the "nobility" begin. I find it very odd that there
> is/was any doubt about who the 2 most verbose non-coin chit-chatters
> are/were (past tense used alternatively, as I'm relatively free from
> it now, all with 2 simple killfile entries). I'm sure it's not
> really that unobvious as long as you're not too busy proving the
> point while trying to justify it.
Jud, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to plonk me in the
name of Nick Knight, who apparently thinks that his opaque references to a
couple of chitchatters are intuitively transparent to all but the most
casual observer. OK, I'm ready, hit me, let's get this rat-killing
overwith.
> If the self-declared-and-inflicted crown fits ... I bow to his written
> eminence-ness. He will, however, remain mostly invisible to me. I'm
> not trying to be nasty. I'm just not at all interested.
Mostly?
James the Invisible Man
Nick Knight
>I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to
>fairly soon. Billy
You've got me beat big-time! Surface checking, I've got a total of 98
entries currently in my combined watch/kill list for both email AND
newsgroups. This includes watch entries for many email addresses that would
otherwise be labeled spam. But as I already admittied, my newsgroup use is
way down, so the only new news-related kills I add are from 1 of a short
hardful of areas.
Nick
note.boy
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hpqo8...@enews5.newsguy.com...
Some are probably one time troll posters but in they go, I take no chances
of seeing more of their nonsense. Billy
Mr. Jaggers
My guess is that one individual accounts for at least 47 of the plonks
you've got in there. 8>)
James the Bean Counter
Scurvy Dog
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ro5wn.154$pi1...@newsfe22.ams2...
> I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to fairly
> soon. Billy
I get a kick out of people like you who brag about the size of their killfiles
yet seldom, if ever, make any signifcant contribution to the group.
You are a particularly egregious example, the like of which has not been seen
since Dave Hinz killfiled everyone in the universe.
I periodically clean out my killfile to see if certain posters' behavior has
changed for the better.
Yours, unfortunately, has not.
Welcome back to my killfile for the next few months...
Bruce Remick
"Scurvy Dog" <scurvydogS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hptmcj$tm5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What a boring and wimpy solution-- "killfiling" somebody. The last thing I
would do is to take steps to avoid seeing posts by a regular rcc posters who
I don't particularly care for. I find the OT chit-chat here a welcome
diversion sometimes, regardless of whether I'm a part of it. What's more
satisfying than seeing someone post a clever one-upping reply to a boorish
rcc'er that shuts him up. Anyone who uses rcc purely as a source of
coin-related information ought to get out a bit more often.
Oh. I found a wheatie yesterday.
Mr. Jaggers
Well, there *is* that tried-and-true solution of simply not opening posts
that one suspects contain objectionable material. And it doesn't require a
macho, public display of contempt. Wait, I guess that's precisely what
motivates the plonkers.
> Oh. I found a wheatie yesterday.
Date/mint/condition, please.
James de Multiply-Plonked
Eric Babula
> I get a kick out of people like you who brag about the size of
> their killfiles yet seldom, if ever, make any signifcant
> contribution to the group. You are a particularly egregious
> example, the like of which has not been seen since Dave Hinz
> killfiled everyone in the universe. I periodically clean out my
> killfile to see if certain posters' behavior has changed for the
> better. Yours, unfortunately, has not.
> Welcome back to my killfile for the next few months...
>
>
Dave Hinz?!?! Is he still around? He's from my neck of the woods -
haven't heard from/about him in a long time.
What about Eric Tillery? Anyone hear anything about him?
Mr. Jaggers
According to my (sometimes unreliable) archive source, his last post here
was on 7/18/07.
James
Jud
> Nick Knight wrote:
> > In
> > <ac5e765b-0d0a-467d-9152-138656faa...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
I access RCC through Google, which has no 'plonk' feature. Even if it
did, I am thick-skinned enough to read just about every post, and
wouldn't plonk anyone, much less you, whose opinions I eagerly
anticipate.
Jud -using manual plonk-
Mr. Jaggers
From the wording of Nick's response to your other post, it appeared that he
had appointed you as his Hit Man ("Tell James..."). But upon now reading of
your reluctance to perform the requested task, I shall go and plonk myself.
I occasionally am ordered to do worse, sometimes impossible, things to
myself, so it won't be all that bad. Here
goes........P......L......O......N......K!!!! Ooo, that actually felt good.
Thanks, Nick, I needed that!
James de Plonkee
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hpvga...@enews5.newsguy.com...
I presume you're not Catholic. Otherwise, I suspect that plonking oneself
could be some kind of sin.
Bruce Remick
"Eric Babula" <mys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D57E98D1762...@94.75.214.39...
Last I heard of Hinz, he had barricaded himself in his castle, armed to the
teeth and just daring anyone to come for his guns. I believe he had a long
beard at the time.
Mr. Jaggers
I struck a deal in advance, sort of a get out of purgatory free arrangement.
James de Purified
Nick Knight
04/12/2010
>it did, I am thick-skinned enough to read just about every post,
It's not really about being thick-skinned. I just bore too easily, I guess,
and see no reason not to relieve some of the problem when automated tools
ARE available. And for me, they are.
Nick
Eric Babula
news:hpvga...@enews5.newsguy.com:
> From the wording of Nick's response to your other post, it
> appeared that he had appointed you as his Hit Man ("Tell
> James..."). But upon now reading of your reluctance to perform
> the requested task, I shall go and plonk myself. I occasionally am
> ordered to do worse, sometimes impossible, things to myself, so it
> won't be all that bad. Here
> goes........P......L......O......N......K!!!! Ooo, that actually
> felt good. Thanks, Nick, I needed that!
>
> James de Plonkee
>
>
But, if you PLONK yourself, does that mean that you can't see or
hear yourself anymore? Or, that you just can't see your posts
anymore? Messing with the natural order of things - not good! Ever
see "Pet Cemetery"? Not good!
Mr. Jaggers
According to M-theory, right after I plonked myself from rcc, I entered
another yet unseen dimension, where I went careening around and plaguing the
local talk groups for several billion years, and eventually ended up right
back here. Everything looks exactly the same as it did before, except that
y'all are a few hours older, while I am not.
James de Time Traveler
Bruce Remick
I believe the "plonk" originated in the early 1950's with Smilin' Ed and
Sparky when Froggie the Gremlin would be asked to "plunk (plonk) his magic
twanger". Can't you imagine the snickers today from any group of young
boys hearing THAT? I wonder what they think about plonking somebody, never
mind plonking yourself.
Eric Babula
news:APPwn.50162$iu2....@newsfe15.iad:
> I believe the "plonk" originated in the early 1950's with Smilin'
> Ed and Sparky when Froggie the Gremlin would be asked to "plunk
> (plonk) his magic twanger". Can't you imagine the snickers today
> from any group of young boys hearing THAT? I wonder what they
> think about plonking somebody, never mind plonking yourself.
>
>
>
>
And, plonking your magic twanger! Wow!! Can you do that in public
without getting arrested?
Mr. Jaggers
First of all, the principal of my high school had the nickname of Frog, and
when he came on the PA to make morning announcements, he played a little
four-note xylophone at the start. We always referred to that as "Froggy
twanging his magic twonger (or twonging his magic twanger, depending on
which gang you were in). And we snickered plenty, so I don't have to
imagine anything. 8>)
James de Twanger (or was it Twonger?)
'but paint the barn red and slap me silly, there I went a-chit-chatting
again'
Eric Babula
> First of all, the principal of my high school had the nickname of
> Frog, and when he came on the PA to make morning announcements, he
> played a little four-note xylophone at the start. We always
> referred to that as "Froggy twanging his magic twonger (or
> twonging his magic twanger, depending on which gang you were in).
> And we snickered plenty, so I don't have to imagine anything. 8>)
>
> James de Twanger (or was it Twonger?)
> 'but paint the barn red and slap me silly, there I went
> a-chit-chatting again'
>
>
>
It's amazing how my OP turned into THIS!!! :)
Eric Babula
Mr. Jaggers
And just think, at least three lurkers and one long-time regular have
dropped this group from their newsreaders because of it.
James de Shameless
Eric Babula
That's a cryin shame! There's sooo much to offer, here.
To keep this OT: I was gonna offer them all a surprise coin. But,
they chose to leave, and now the offer is off the table. Sorry, they
lose.
Eric Babula
Mr. Jaggers
For those who have not yet plonked me, I'd advise developping a strong sense
of humor, else one day you're going to wake up and discover that life has
really done you wrong.
James, Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ating the Positive
Nick Knight
>It's amazing how my OP turned into THIS!!! :)
Yes. Welcome to the verbose world of "chit chat". How exciting.
Nick
Jud
> I believe the "plonk" originated in the early 1950's with Smilin' Ed and
> Sparky when Froggie the Gremlin would be asked to "plunk (plonk) his magic
> twanger". Can't you imagine the snickers today from any group of young
> boys hearing THAT? I wonder what they think about plonking somebody, never
> mind plonking yourself.
Hmmmm. When I was a kid, the ONLY childrens programming on TV was
Saturday mornings. I have never heard of Smilin' Ed and Sparky, but I
did watch 'Andy's Gang', with Andy Devine. There would always be a
Sabu, the Elephant Boy short, and a comedy routine featuring Squeeky
and Midnight (a mouse and a cat) or Froggy, who 'plunked his magic
twanger'. "Hiya kids! Hiya hiya hiya!" was his opening line. Possibly
Froggy got around to more than one program?
Jud - de Reminsicent-
Bruce Remick
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85a7e2e8-5260-483f...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Jud - de Reminsicent-
======
Smilin' Ed McConnell and His Buster Brown Gang, formerly a radio show, came
on TV before Andy's Gang and lasted only one season (1950-51). The show
returned as Andy's Gang in 1955. But Smilin' Ed is the one that registered
most in my memory today, maybe because I remember the radio version, too.
Froggy the Gremlin originated on Smilin' Ed. I did seem to have "Sparky"
wrong. He or it is not listed in a history of the show. I remember him
from somewhere, though. Smilin' Ed had Midnight the Cat and Squeaky the
Mouse.
Ahhhh. I just Googled and learned that "Big John and Sparky" was a
childrens' radio show from circa 1951 that caused "Sarky" to stick in my
mind. I enjoyed listening to 1940's and 50's radio shows as much as TV.
mazorj
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6Y7xn.126911$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
Do you listen to Ed Walker's old-time radio show Sunday nights on the
WAMU-FM 88.5 public radio station? Four hours (7 to 11 p.m. EDT) of radio
classics from the 1930s, 40s and 50s.
I know that you can get it directly off the air, but for other radio fans
it's also available everywhere on Internet streaming.
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hq4uvv$jaq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I've heard of the show but have never devoted a Sunday night to listen.
I'll have to check it out. I have restored a couple of old 1930's radios
that would recreate the atmosphere, but they don't pick up FM. Anyway, my
wife would probably wonder if I was okay if she saw me sitting up close to
and staring into a radio.
sgt23
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hq4uvv$jaq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:6Y7xn.126911$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
>
About when did the radio company's start had ear phone jacks to the
Radio's?
sgt23
About when did the radio company's start adding ear phone jacks to the
radios? Sorry for the typo error's.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
They've been around a long time. As a kid I had a certain amount of
WWII surplus equipment and they commonly had 1/4" head phone jacks.
Even so, I think that they were in use in the 1920s, but I'm not sure
how widely.
Scurvy Dog
news:1fca93d0-9aee-47d1...@y21g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> About when did the radio company's start adding ear phone jacks to the
> radios? Sorry for the typo error's.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They've been around a long time. As a kid I had a certain amount of
WWII surplus equipment and they commonly had 1/4" head phone jacks.
Even so, I think that they were in use in the 1920s, but I'm not sure
how widely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Many early radios didn't have speakers, only headphones.
Peter
wrote:
I think you're right. Even so, his question was about phone jacks.
The earliest radios may have had phones and no speakers, but I am not
sure. Even so, I think the jack may have developed separately. I
have seen the 1/4" jack on radios that were designed in the '30s. I
am only in my sixties so it is hard for me to go farther.
There are several different series of jacks. The 1/4" is quite old.
The RCA (600 ohm system) appeared around 1950 and is somewhat more
popular today (smaller). The 1/8" and some others are fairly recent.
The RJ 11 and RJ 45 that the telephone companies use are rather
popular now. Previously (ca. 1955), there were a whole family of odd
telephone plugs used in the US and Europe.
sgt23
Interesting, thanks for feeding a hungry mind. :D . I bet the sound
was terrible.
sgt23
So if I wanted to work on Radio's what would be a good book too study
or could I take classes on repairing electronics? I'm not a
electrician so I know very little about wiring or what too look for
when replacing parts.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you might find better suggestions, but I started >50 years ago
with publications by the ARRL (arrl.org). Their handbook and antenna
book are relevant. They each go for about $50, for the latest issue.
You might look at Abe books, Amazon or eBay for better offers on used
ones. Very little of the basics change over time. There is now less
interest in tubes and transistors and more in some other bits, but the
underlying principles are the same as what my grandfather studied.
sgt23
Hey thanks for the help! I notice, with a little research, that the
ARRL deals mostly Ham Radio, Amateur Radio's. I guess I'm off to Ebay
too do a little searching. Once again thanks!
Bruce Remick
"sgt23" <bravesfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:382e38b4-661f-43a6...@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
________
I'm no expert by any stretch. I just decided that while I was recuperating
from a pair of rotator cuff surgeries a few years ago, I wanted to learn how
to do something that always fascinated me. Radio repair. I managed to
learn enough to get a couple of non-working eBay radios back in service. I
don't know how far back that earphones were required, probably in the early
1920's. As for jacks, it probably depended on the type and brand of the
radio. With internal speakers there was little demand for earphones. I
once had my grandfather's radio that required deployment of a massive
antenna array. It's hinged-lid, cherry, tambour cabinet was a beautiful
antique, but sadly I totally wrecked it as a young teenager after
"customizing" it to my needs.
One of my favorites was the 99¢ "cat's whisker" crystal set that most kids
had at one time in the 1940's. You needed earphones for that. I was
probably too young to realize how amazing that simple little thing really
was.
Bruce Remick
+++++++
First I bought and read some old textbooks that explained radio workings,
how to do basic testing, and how to replace capacitors, etc. It's amazing
how many old tube radios simply need a few new capacitors to get back on the
air. Tubes go bad less frequently than you might think. I bought a couple
inexpensive, non-working, "project" 1930's table radios on eBay and learned
how to trace wires, do simple tests, make solder connections, etc. Those
were the ones I got working. I also found a couple Usenet groups like this
that featured amateur radio repair discussions. Friendly types, they helped
answer a number of questions I had.
Don't go too hog wild until you're sure you really want to get involved in
this stuff. I lost interest once my shoulders healed. But I still listen
to the radios that I fixed.
sgt23
> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thanks for every ones help, I think I know where to go from here.
Scurvy Dog
> One of my favorites was the 99¢ "cat's whisker" crystal set that most kids had
> at one time in the 1940's. You needed earphones for that. I was probably too
> young to realize how amazing that simple little thing really was.
<chitchat>
I had one of those old cat's whisker crystal sets back in the 50s.
I was fascinated by it.
Wish I still had it.
</chitchat>
Peter
wrote:
The parts are cheap and they still work (for AM radio).
Scurvy Dog
-----------------------------------------------------------
<chitchat>
The latest sets forego the cat's whisker and use a diode.
A search on Google readily turned up schematics and diagrams on building your
own set from parts that are available from Radio Shack or other electronics
suppliers.
</chitchat>
Bruce Remick
"Scurvy Dog" <scurvydogS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqhgg7$2qj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I think they can still be had from several companies that deal in
"nostalgia" items. Probably not for 99¢ anymore. It would make a
eye-opener gift for some young iPod kid who has seldom had the occasion to
listen to a radio. He (or she) might enjoy connecting a couple wires to a
dry cell (do they still sell those things?), mount the crystal, connect some
earphones, and actually hear radio stations coming out of practically
"nothing".
Scurvy Dog
The beauty of the old crystal radio is that it needed no external power...
Tony Clayton
I remember listening to the Halle Orchestra playing the Messiah on mine. The aerial
lead was connected to my bedsprings.
I later made a one valve amplifier radio, but there must have been a dry connection
in the tuning circuit as when I listened to one programme I could hear several
others in the background!
>
>
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... Illiterate? Write for a free brochure!
Bruce Remick
Y'know, you're right there. I had forgotten after all these years so I did
a little Googling, too, and noted that all you needed for power was a proper
length of antenna wire-- no battery. Like magic! Like picking up Casey
Kasem on your braces.
I still wonder if kids today will ever realize what they're missing by not
having dry cell batteries to support desktop experiments.
Bruce Remick
"Tony Clayton" <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4608ca51%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk...
I knew we must have pro somewhere on rcc. Here I thought I was one of the
first into high fidelity when I decided to replace the string on my soup can
telephones with piano wire. I'm humbled.
mazorj
>
> "Scurvy Dog" <scurvydogS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqhue7$dil$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
...
>> The beauty of the old crystal radio is that it needed no external
>> power...
>
> Y'know, you're right there. I had forgotten after all these years so I
> did a little Googling, too, and noted that all you needed for power was a
> proper length of antenna wire-- no battery. Like magic! Like picking
> up Casey Kasem on your braces.
You got that? All I could get was a clear channel country music/religious
station in the Midwest. Every time the orthodontist did an adjustment, it
came in louder and clearer. Bummer.
mazorj
technology:
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2kPyn.160374$0N3.1...@newsfe09.iad...
...
> First I bought and read some old textbooks that explained radio workings,
> how to do basic testing, and how to replace capacitors, etc. It's amazing
> how many old tube radios simply need a few new capacitors to get back on
> the air. Tubes go bad less frequently than you might think.
As a teenager I worked in a drugstore that had a big metal display rack of
radio and TV tubes and test sockets. We did a brisk business because
transistors were still a novelty and even though most tubes lasted for
years, every household's assortment of tube devices would have the
occasional blow-out.
I got my first portable radio around then, a 6-transistor Sony about half
the size of a cigar box. We chose it over a cheaper 5-transistor model
because the salesman assured my mother that 6 transistors were better than
5.
Anyone remember the earliest portable consumer radios? They still had tubes
and were the size of two bread boxes. They had two batteries, an A (which
later begat the smaller AA and the AAA and the AAAA lines) and a massive B
which I think supplied higher voltage and/or amperage for the tubes. It was
like lugging a piece of luggage around with you.
There's a cottage industry of retro types who value old tube radios and
amplifiers. The sound they produce is distinct from that of modern
electronics. It provides a different listening experience, especially when
mated with the warmer sound of vinyl records. Accoustics buffs also
treasure classic microphones from the golden age of radio for their distinct
characteristics.
Sound quality is in the ear of the beholder, but there's probaby something
to all this besides nostalgia.
>I bought a couple inexpensive, non-working, "project" 1930's table radios
>on eBay and learned how to trace wires, do simple tests, make solder
>connections, etc. Those were the ones I got working. I also found a
>couple Usenet groups like this that featured amateur radio repair
>discussions. Friendly types, they helped answer a number of questions I
>had.
In the 1970s I built several Heathkit receivers, which were a great value
for the money until technology and cheap overseas factory labor made them
more of a hobbyist curiosity.
It was a good learning experience even though most of the time I had no idea
of what I was doing except soldering components. You got the general idea
when installing obvious parts like jacks and switches and volume and tuning
controls. (The analog tuning dial, with a red stick traveling on a string
connected to the tuner, was particularly finicky to assemble and adjust.)
The rest was pages and pages of "Solder Resistor #217 into locations 217A
and 217B". God help you if you reversed a diode or any of the umpteen
connections was a cold joint.
> Don't go too hog wild until you're sure you really want to get involved in
> this stuff. I lost interest once my shoulders healed. But I still listen
> to the radios that I fixed.
Sounds like (double entendre intended) the ideal listening source for that
Sunday-night show on classic radio programs!
Scurvy Dog
"Tony Clayton" <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4608ca51%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk...
A capacitor might have fixed that problem...
Bruce Remick
> Since we're now solidly into chit-chat about obsolete electronics
> technology:
>
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:2kPyn.160374$0N3.1...@newsfe09.iad...
>
> ...
>> First I bought and read some old textbooks that explained radio workings,
>> how to do basic testing, and how to replace capacitors, etc. It's
>> amazing how many old tube radios simply need a few new capacitors to get
>> back on the air. Tubes go bad less frequently than you might think.
>
> As a teenager I worked in a drugstore that had a big metal display rack of
> radio and TV tubes and test sockets. We did a brisk business because
> transistors were still a novelty and even though most tubes lasted for
> years, every household's assortment of tube devices would have the
> occasional blow-out.
I recall my folks sending me to the local drug store with a tube or two to
check on their big testing machine. If one turned out bad, there was a
supply of replacements stored in a compartment at the bottom of the tester.
>
> I got my first portable radio around then, a 6-transistor Sony about half
> the size of a cigar box. We chose it over a cheaper 5-transistor model
> because the salesman assured my mother that 6 transistors were better than
> 5.
We kids would boast about how many transistors our radio had. A real radio
that could fit in your pocket was such a novelty that even people who didn't
listen to the radio had to have one.
>
> Anyone remember the earliest portable consumer radios? They still had
> tubes and were the size of two bread boxes. They had two batteries, an A
> (which later begat the smaller AA and the AAA and the AAAA lines) and a
> massive B which I think supplied higher voltage and/or amperage for the
> tubes. It was like lugging a piece of luggage around with you.
Our first portable was a heavy, plastic-cased Emerson, about the size of a
briefcase and twice as thick. Half of the innards was battery of some type.
Whatever, it never stored power for long so we had to be frugal playing it
when a plug in was also available. Sorta like the old "farm radios".
I thought of that very thing, except I can't receive FM.
Bruce Remick
What brand of toothpaste were you using? That made a difference. Don't
you remember Bucky Beaver? He was able to bring in Europe on his uppers.
Scurvy Dog
Good old Bucky would exhort consumers to "Brusha, brusha, brusha. Brusha with
Ipana"
All this non-numismatic chitchat must be frustrating Reid the Net Cop to no end!
<g>
David
> Hello again, everyone! Yes, I've been on an extended leave of absence
> from RCC - sorry about that, if you care. If you're happy about that,
> sorry I'm back! Well, not really sorry.
>
> I just started reading RCC on and off, again, and remembered all the
> fun discussions we used to have. And I kinda miss it!! Looks like
> there might be a couple regulars from years past, still hanging
> around! But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?
>
> I'm reading on groups.google.com, and am not seeing very much traffic
> here. I lost my News Feed (Road Runner/Time Warner Cable in WI doesn't
> support Newsgroups anymore). I get just a few new posts a week on
> Google Groups - that can't be, can it? Anyway - I think I'd like to
> find a new News Feed service (FREE if possible), and a Newsreader (I
> used to use XNews and liked it - will have to see if that still
> works). Is Tera News (Free) still the way others have gone, in order
> to get all the RCC posts, including
> alt.binaries.pictures.numismatic??? Any other suggestions?
>
> Anyway - so I really haven't done much of anything with coins since I
> "left" reading and contributing to RCC. I have big plans to image all
> my coins some day, but never seem to get to that. The "Honey-Do" list
> never seems to get smaller, no matter how many things I cross off!!
> And, the kids are keeping us so busy - the only free time we really
> have is Friday nights. Really, the only coin-related thing I've done
> is: I've just recently started reading "Crime of 1873 - The Comstock
> Connection" - about the Comstock silver mines, and the history leading
> up to the creation of the Trade and Morgan Dollars. If anyone recalls,
> I tend to be interested in Morgan Dollars above most coins, for
> whatever reason. Maybe it's my love of the Wild, Wild West as a youth.
> Maybe it's the design of Lady Liberty (not particularly attractive,
> but nicely designed) and the Eagle. Maybe it's because I love big,
> heavy, shiny silver! I don't know. I do love other coins, too. I have
> only collected U.S. coins, though, I do have some coins from other
> areas of the world - mostly as gifts from others.
>
> Anywhoo, I'm hoping to be back to RCC, at least on a part-time basis.
> If anyone has suggestions on a good, reliable News Feed that'll get me
> all the RCC and ABPM posts, I'd much appreciate it! I feel like I'm
> missing a ton, here on Google Groups.
>
> Have a Great Day!!!
>
> Eric Babula
Welcome Back Eric!
I too have been on a bit of a leave of absence from RCC.
Davey