the 'TV aerial' discussion

[Bill Wright]

The trouble with newsgroups is that the OP can't differentiate between
the one or two people who know what they're talking about and the rest.
The 'TV aerial' discussion includes many responses that are given in an
authoritative manner yet are total hogwash. Buried amongst these are one
or two that actually make sense.

Bill

[Graham.]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:26:12 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Hi Bill, I was working in a retail premises in Frodingham Road
Scunthorpe Yesterday afternoon (Thu).

There was a very close lightening strike which I am reasonably sure
took the EPOS receipt printer, or its PSU out.

It wasn't my responsibility, but I did overhear the call to their
support help-desk, apparently a thunder storm could not cause this.

Any system failures in that area come to your attention?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[DerekG]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:02:40 +0100, Graham. <m...@privacy.net> wrote:


>Hi Bill, I was working in a retail premises in Frodingham Road
>Scunthorpe Yesterday afternoon (Thu).
>
>There was a very close lightening strike which I am reasonably sure
>took the EPOS receipt printer, or its PSU out.
>
>It wasn't my responsibility, but I did overhear the call to their
>support help-desk, apparently a thunder storm could not cause this.
>
>Any system failures in that area come to your attention?

My sister runs a small jeweller's shop. Once overnight there was a
thunderstorm in the locality. In the morning when she came to open up
she found the credit card verifier had chewed it's way through all
it's entire roll of paper printing "Bluetooth Error" on each line.

HTH.

DerekG

[Bill Wright]

Graham. wrote:

> It wasn't my responsibility, but I did overhear the call to their
> support help-desk, apparently a thunder storm could not cause this.

Ha!

>
> Any system failures in that area come to your attention?

We had a hell of a storm this afternoon. See

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/June%2013th%20storm/hailstorm%20June%2013th%2001.MPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/June%2013th%20storm/thunderstorm%2001.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/June%2013th%20storm/thunderstorm%2002.JPG

To my surprise there have been no reports yet of system failures. It was
quite late in the day though, and local councils etc are not renowned
for the speed of their response. It's very unpredictable, the effect of
lighting storms. I've had both extremes of surprise many times.

Bill

[Road_Hog]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kpdkem$mku$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Well, you can always fwck off somewhere else then. The fact that people are
willing to try and help and give their advice for free, should mean that
people have to accept some of it is good and some not so good. There's far
more than one or two that make sense in the TV aerial thread.

You can of course, go and pay a professional for advice, but if you come
here for free advice then stop complaining about it. I suppose you're also
unhappy with your *free* newserver.

[dennis@home]

Its the same as asking in the local pub, except you don't even get to
see who you are asking.
It has been since the public were allowed (well access made so easy they
could) internet access.
Its the reason you start by ignoring GG.

[Adrian]

As the (yes, totally inexpert on this subject) OP, I can only say "Thank
you for stating the bleedin' obvious".

Welcome to any kind of "un-official" and un-moderated support resource.
NAHAY?

If you think some of the responses are bollocks, then here's a suggestion
- REPLY TO THEM. Say why you think they're bollocks. If others disagree,
maybe a sensible conversation can result in which either everybody merges
and agrees or a consensus emerges as to what's bollocks and what's not.

Just, please, don't sit on the edge and whine about it. That's really not
very helpful at all.

[news]

On 14/06/2013 00:26, Bill Wright wrote:

Is that not par for the course for most unmoderated NG. It certainly is
for this one as it seems to have very poor signal to noise and in many
cases seems to serve more as a local chat group than a useful source of
info (and if read in that light can be very entertaining :-)) . There
was a post a couple of weeks ago about using credit cards to buy fuel in
the USA - there must have been close on 50 follow ups but only 3 or 4 of
them were about the original question. Most replies were whining on
about the design of software for buying stuff off the web - all
doubtless very true but of no use at all to the OP.

It seems par for the course that on almost every thread someone will
post a reply and someone else will say that they are talking tosh.

Sorting the good from the bad seems to take some time (but does raise
some smiles along the way)


--
Chris

[Brian Gaff]

Hmm, well the problem was also that the person seems unsure of that was in
the house and where and what it was doing.

There are times when its pointless to attempt to get stuff to work of course
as the history of it is steeped in mystery.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kpdkem$mku$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[The Natural Philosopher]

+1 and if you think that its just usenet, and that paid for support is
any better...let us travel back in time to my first Unix install.
Interactive Unix 386 on a PC circa 1993

"Hello, is that interactive Unix UK technical support"
"yes, Dis is interactive Unix UK support"
"I am trying to install the product and it gets as far as ...XXXXX and
then just hangs"
"Oh, Sir de BIOS she is incompatible Sir: I cannot help you"
....
have coffee, note time, look at box, dial USA. Should be early morning
in California

"Hello, is that Interactive Unix technical support"
Spaced out west coast drawl suggestive of many late night bongs.

"Sure is,how may I help you?"
" I am trying to get the product to install, it gets so far and then
freezes"
"Oh, OK what is the last thing on screen before it does?"
"XXXXX"

Silence apart from remote tapping of keys.

"Hello are you still there?"
"sure, sorry dude I was looking through the installation script: Does
the motherboard have a maths coprocessor?".
"I don't think so"
"Well the place its hung is because it went looking for one, and I guess
if it didn't find one, it looks like it would actually stay looking forever"
"So the BIOS is incompatible"
"Hell no! There will be a jumper on the board that you need to change
if the coprocessor isn't there, then we won't go looking for it. But it
shouldn't hang if it doesn't find it. I'll fix that for the next relaease'
"YOU will fix it??"
"Yeah, I wrote the installation script"
The following day I took the PC to the man who had built it for me and
explained 'Oh right, yes, there is a jumper. We never bother with it
because Windows never uses the coprocessor anyway, so we don't supply em
with the coprocessors : hang on" removed jumper with tweezers "that
should do it,"

And it did.

"The BIOS she is Incompatible", uttered in a thick Indian accent, became
our in joke meaning "I haven't a clue, and I don't want to talk to you.
This is a convenient excuse".

Quality of support is not correlated with how much you paid for it.

Three times in my support career, I phoned SUN, Interactive Unix, and
Cisco directly in the USA and each time I got through directly to THE
GUY THAT WROTE THE SOFTWARE and got problems resolved that had stumped
the 'paid' support line in the UK.

You should thank your stars for Usenet. And the Web. I once spent a
morning in the loal university bookshop and spent £50 on an
book simply because it had, as an example, "how to get a parallel
printer working on SUN solaris system V printing"

It was a line of about 140 characters. I paid £50 for that line, took
the book back, typed it in, and the bugger worked.

I don't think we ever used that book again.

These days you type a query into google and back comes 50 answers and
usually at least one is actually correct.

It's cheaper.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is Usenet. Love it or hate it.

You will always get

- people who have actually done it themselves, saying exactly how they
did it, with the caveat that YMMV
- people who have done something not very like it, but chip in anyway
- people who have never done it, but read about it somewhere and to whom
there is only One True Way of doing it.
- people who want to sell you something, or be noticed, who will tell
you any shit to achieve that end.
- people who simply like to thinkabout how things are done, in a
theoretical way. Even if they have no direct experience. Sometimes they
are way off. Sometimes they come up with interesting approaches.
- people who have nothing better to do than chatter idly.

The point is, that life is no different than that. Usenet is simply a
subset of people who can use computers and have discovered a more arcane
method of communication than 'twitter'
Learning how to deal with the 'noise' is excellent experience for life
in general.

[Martin Brown]

On 14/06/2013 00:26, Bill Wright wrote:

> The trouble with newsgroups is that the OP can't differentiate between
> the one or two people who know what they're talking about and the rest.

The OP came looking for help with a specific problem. This is Usenet.
Any advice given here for nothing is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Apart from the claim of 4G interfering with Freesat and windmills
causing dynamic multipath distortion[*] I didn't see too much wrong. The
main problem initially was getting the OP to define his problem clearly
enough to be able to offer sensible advice.

[*] they might but probably not as badly as in the USA. The US never
mind the quality feel the width approach has severe multipath problems.

> The 'TV aerial' discussion includes many responses that are given in an
> authoritative manner yet are total hogwash. Buried amongst these are one
> or two that actually make sense.
>
> Bill

If you think *YOU* can do better then by all means post corrections
don't start a new thread whinging that free help is somehow no good!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[F]

You might want to check out Bill's website:
http://www.paras.org.uk/index.shtml

--
F

[bm]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4iCut.8782$4e6....@newsfe09.iad...

I think Bill prolly CAN do better -
http://www.paras.org.uk/index.shtml

[Adrian]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:31:03 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

> The main problem initially was getting the OP to define his problem
> clearly enough to be able to offer sensible advice.

<grin> Guilty as charged.

But I now know a big chunk more than I did two days ago.

[Java Jive]

That's not Bill's website, though I believe he was a major contributor
to that site. Bill's website is:

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:46:43 +0100, F <news@nowhere> wrote:
>
> You might want to check out Bill's website:
> http://www.paras.org.uk/index.shtml
--

=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[F]

On 14/06/2013 12:16 Java Jive wrote:

> That's not Bill's website, though I believe he was a major contributor
> to that site. Bill's website is:
>
> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:46:43 +0100, F <news@nowhere> wrote:
>>
>> You might want to check out Bill's website:
>> http://www.paras.org.uk/index.shtml

I think you'll find they're one and the same...

--
F

[Java Jive]

So they are, now, but they didn't used to be.

The URL I gave was genuinely for Bill's website. The one you gave was
for an informal organisation called "Professional Aerial Riggers
Against The Sharks", and its contents aimed to give punters free
advice about DSO to avoid them being conned into buying "digital
aerials" or being persuaded that they would have to subscribe to $ky.

I don't know what has happened to PARAS. Perhaps, now that DSO is
over, it was thought to have outlived its usefulness, but I can
foresee it being needed again wrt 4G.

Perhaps Bill might care to explain?

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:05:10 +0100, F <news@nowhere> wrote:
>
> I think you'll find they're one and the same...
--

[F]

On 14/06/2013 16:25 Java Jive wrote:

> So they are, now, but they didn't used to be.
>
> The URL I gave was genuinely for Bill's website. The one you gave was
> for an informal organisation called "Professional Aerial Riggers
> Against The Sharks", and its contents aimed to give punters free
> advice about DSO to avoid them being conned into buying "digital
> aerials" or being persuaded that they would have to subscribe to $ky.

I know that, but it made the point I wanted to make.

--
F

[John Rumm]

Might also be worth having a look at:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial

Since this includes what should hopefully be reasonable quality
information. (if Bill would like to give it a once over and comment, it
would be much appreciated since it has changed a bit since the last time
he looked at it)



--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Graham.]

The PARAS URL has been pointing to Bill's site for a while but now,
possibly in the lifetime of this thread, it is now pointing at
https://at800.tv/index.shtml which doesn't exist but, as "404" pages
go, is quite informative. It would be better going to
https://at800.tv/

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[F]

It's been switched in the last 11 hours and 59 minutes...

So those who doubt Bill's credentials should have a look at
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml

--
F

[Steve Firth]

F <news@nowhere> wrote:

> So those who doubt Bill's credentials should have a look at
> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml

You do realise that argument by authority is a fallacy, don't you?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Bill Wright]

Java Jive wrote:
> So they are, now, but they didn't used to be.
>
> The URL I gave was genuinely for Bill's website. The one you gave was
> for an informal organisation called "Professional Aerial Riggers
> Against The Sharks", and its contents aimed to give punters free
> advice about DSO to avoid them being conned into buying "digital
> aerials" or being persuaded that they would have to subscribe to $ky.
>
> I don't know what has happened to PARAS. Perhaps, now that DSO is
> over, it was thought to have outlived its usefulness, but I can
> foresee it being needed again wrt 4G.
>
> Perhaps Bill might care to explain?

We decided to end PARAs because DSO had happened.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Steve Firth wrote:
> F <news@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> So those who doubt Bill's credentials should have a look at
>> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml
>
> You do realise that argument by authority is a fallacy, don't you?
>

Argument backed by credentials isn't.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

John Rumm wrote:

> Since this includes what should hopefully be reasonable quality
> information. (if Bill would like to give it a once over and comment, it
> would be much appreciated since it has changed a bit since the last time
> he looked at it)

Very little wrong this that!

There are grouped log-periodics though. Satellite Solutions/Vision sell
them.

I would add a caution that cranked masts impose a strong twisting force
on the U bolts in the chimney/wall bracket.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

John Rumm wrote:

> Since this includes what should hopefully be reasonable quality
> information. (if Bill would like to give it a once over and comment, it
> would be much appreciated since it has changed a bit since the last time
> he looked at it)
>

I should add that I have a large library of relevant pictures if you
want any to illustrate various points. Also, feel free to link to my
articles on my website. My 'Rogues' Gallery' might also be instructive...

Bill

[meow...@care2.com]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:14:11 PM UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:

> John Rumm wrote:

> Very little wrong this that!
>
> There are grouped log-periodics though. Satellite Solutions/Vision sell
> them.
>
> I would add a caution that cranked masts impose a strong twisting force
> on the U bolts in the chimney/wall bracket.

done, cheers.


NT

[meow...@care2.com]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:15:53 PM UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:

> I should add that I have a large library of relevant pictures if you
> want any to illustrate various points. Also, feel free to link to my
> articles on my website. My 'Rogues' Gallery' might also be instructive...
> Bill

Thanks Bill. I've added a couple of links to your site. I'm sure more could be added. It really shows just how much breadth & detail isnt covered by the wiki.

More illustrations on the wiki page would surely help it along. Do you want to pick a few, or is there a place we can look at some? I dont know whether you want to keep your site pics just for that site. Cheers.


NT

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:15:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

<an excellent summation of usenet contributors>

>The point is, that life is no different than that. Usenet is simply a
>subset of people who can use computers and have discovered a more arcane
>method of communication than 'twitter'
>Learning how to deal with the 'noise' is excellent experience for life
>in general.

Indeed.

[Steve Firth]

<snigger>

You really need to learn what "argument by authority" is. Suffice it to say
that you are wrong.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Bill Wright]

No, if a person has relevant credentials they are more likely to know
the subject.

And don't snigger. Only immature people do that. You know, Year 6 boys
in the sex ed class, etc.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

I have 400+ 'representative' pictures, stock shots if you like to call
them that (314MB) and 1,555 pics of specific installations (1.36GB). I
could post you a dongle or disk with them all on, but I don't think
you'd find your way to pictures you wanted very easily because of the
way they're indexed (they aren't). Perhaps if you give me specific
examples of things/concepts you want to illustrate and I have a rummage;
see what I can find?

Bill

[F]

On 15/06/2013 11:35 Steve Firth wrote:

> F <news@nowhere> wrote:
>
>> So those who doubt Bill's credentials should have a look at
>> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/index.shtml
>
> You do realise that argument by authority is a fallacy, don't you?

Whatever.

You're the only one arguing.

--
F

[John Rumm]

On 17/06/2013 01:17, Bill Wright wrote:

> I have 400+ 'representative' pictures, stock shots if you like to call
> them that (314MB) and 1,555 pics of specific installations (1.36GB). I
> could post you a dongle or disk with them all on, but I don't think
> you'd find your way to pictures you wanted very easily because of the
> way they're indexed (they aren't). Perhaps if you give me specific
> examples of things/concepts you want to illustrate and I have a rummage;
> see what I can find?

We currently have a few TV related articles on the wiki - the aerial one
you have seen. There is also:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Aerial_amplifier
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cable_for_TV_aerials
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Diplexer

It would be nice to have photos to add to each section to illustrate
some of the things being described...

Keep in mind the focus of these is really to assist members of the
public looking to DIY - provide the required background, and help them
identify what the parts of the system are, an what they do.

So in the aerial article for example, photos of the various aerial types
discussed. Some showing different mounting positions, and different mast
types and sizes. Pictures of commonly encountered "bits" that people are
likely to find in their home might be handy to make it easier to
identify stuff. So things like masthead amps, and PSUs, diplexers,
splitters, loft boxen etc. Our phased array aerial diagram is sub
optimal shall we say ;-) (no offence NT, I know you just improved it!)

[meow...@care2.com]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:54:40 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
> On 17/06/2013 01:17, Bill Wright wrote:

> > I have 400+ 'representative' pictures, stock shots if you like to call
> > them that (314MB) and 1,555 pics of specific installations (1.36GB). I
> > could post you a dongle or disk with them all on, but I don't think
> > you'd find your way to pictures you wanted very easily because of the
> > way they're indexed (they aren't). Perhaps if you give me specific
> > examples of things/concepts you want to illustrate and I have a rummage;
> > see what I can find?

We could probably go thru the articles and create a list, but I dont get much wiki time, and I dont think anyone does really. There's clearly room for more tv related articles too, which would benefit from more images.

How do you feel about sending a disc to one of us, and we can either put it on the web somewhere, with permission for the wiki to use anything from it? Or it could be uploaded to rapidshare etc with a password, and when us wikiwriters get a spare mo we can look through it. 2000 images isnt a big problem, I do get a wikihour now and then.

> We currently have a few TV related articles on the wiki - the aerial one
> you have seen. There is also:
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Aerial_amplifier
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cable_for_TV_aerials
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Diplexer
> It would be nice to have photos to add to each section to illustrate
> some of the things being described...
> Keep in mind the focus of these is really to assist members of the
> public looking to DIY - provide the required background, and help them
> identify what the parts of the system are, an what they do.
> So in the aerial article for example, photos of the various aerial types
> discussed. Some showing different mounting positions, and different mast
> types and sizes. Pictures of commonly encountered "bits" that people are
> likely to find in their home might be handy to make it easier to
> identify stuff. So things like masthead amps, and PSUs, diplexers,
> splitters, loft boxen etc.

Sounds like another potential article

> Our phased array aerial diagram is sub
> optimal shall we say ;-) (no offence NT, I know you just improved it!)

Damn, I worked so hard on those full stops & apostrophes. :) Its just a matter of time & will isn't it. If anyone wants to draw a clear diagram, great.


NT

[John Rumm]

On 17/06/2013 19:10, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:54:40 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 17/06/2013 01:17, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>>> I have 400+ 'representative' pictures, stock shots if you like to
>>> call them that (314MB) and 1,555 pics of specific installations
>>> (1.36GB). I could post you a dongle or disk with them all on, but
>>> I don't think you'd find your way to pictures you wanted very
>>> easily because of the way they're indexed (they aren't). Perhaps
>>> if you give me specific examples of things/concepts you want to
>>> illustrate and I have a rummage; see what I can find?
>
> We could probably go thru the articles and create a list, but I dont
> get much wiki time, and I dont think anyone does really. There's
> clearly room for more tv related articles too, which would benefit
> from more images.

I was going to suggest we create Bill a wiki account, then he can cut
out all the middle men, and upload any images that he fancies directly...

(Might even be able to coax him into writing some words for it as well?)

> How do you feel about sending a disc to one of us, and we can either
> put it on the web somewhere, with permission for the wiki to use
> anything from it? Or it could be uploaded to rapidshare etc with a
> password, and when us wikiwriters get a spare mo we can look through
> it. 2000 images isnt a big problem, I do get a wikihour now and
> then.
>
>
>> We currently have a few TV related articles on the wiki - the
>> aerial one you have seen. There is also:
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Aerial_amplifier
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cable_for_TV_aerials
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Diplexer It would be nice
>> to have photos to add to each section to illustrate some of the
>> things being described... Keep in mind the focus of these is really
>> to assist members of the public looking to DIY - provide the
>> required background, and help them identify what the parts of the
>> system are, an what they do. So in the aerial article for example,
>> photos of the various aerial types discussed. Some showing
>> different mounting positions, and different mast types and sizes.
>> Pictures of commonly encountered "bits" that people are likely to
>> find in their home might be handy to make it easier to identify
>> stuff. So things like masthead amps, and PSUs, diplexers,
>> splitters, loft boxen etc.
>
> Sounds like another potential article

Well most of the words are there... might want splitting into a couple
of separate articles - at the moment its a bit too close to an effort to
throw all the information at one page and hope it sticks.

>> Our phased array aerial diagram is sub optimal shall we say ;-) (no
>> offence NT, I know you just improved it!)
>
> Damn, I worked so hard on those full stops & apostrophes. :) Its just
> a matter of time & will isn't it. If anyone wants to draw a clear
> diagram, great.

I was considering it the other night, but with hindsight, I am sure Bill
has a photo of a real one.

[Bill Wright]

John Rumm wrote:

> I was going to suggest we create Bill a wiki account, then he can cut
> out all the middle men, and upload any images that he fancies directly...

Oh no no no! I am busy busy to the extent that I have trouble finding
time to do the Wotsat articles. I couldn't possibly take anything else
on. Sorry.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

John Rumm wrote:

> We currently have a few TV related articles on the wiki - the aerial one
> you have seen. There is also:
>
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Aerial_amplifier
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cable_for_TV_aerials
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Diplexer

I started trying to sort some pictures out for you but gave up. Look,
best thing is I'll send you a disk. Email me through my website
wrightsaerials.tv with an address or ring me or and I'll post you a disk.

This has made me realise what an horrendous jumble the pictures are in.
The only good thing is they almost all have descriptive file names so a
word search will work.

Would you please credit the pictures?

Bill

[bm]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kpo8no$gar$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Blimey, Bill. Is this a night on the tiles?

[John Rumm]

Worth a try ;-)

Point me at an image cache and I will go plunder if you prefer...

[John Rumm]

On 18/06/2013 01:13, Bill Wright wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> We currently have a few TV related articles on the wiki - the aerial
>> one you have seen. There is also:
>>
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Aerial_amplifier
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cable_for_TV_aerials
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Diplexer
>
> I started trying to sort some pictures out for you but gave up. Look,
> best thing is I'll send you a disk. Email me through my website
> wrightsaerials.tv with an address or ring me or and I'll post you a disk.

ok done...

> This has made me realise what an horrendous jumble the pictures are in.
> The only good thing is they almost all have descriptive file names so a
> word search will work.
>
> Would you please credit the pictures?

Of course. You can have a link to your web site as well at no extra cost ;-)

[Bill Wright]

John Rumm wrote:

> Of course. You can have a link to your web site as well at no extra cost
> ;-)

>You should by now have had an email from me. The disk is in the post.

Bill