Garage door eye

[Van Chocstraw]

I have 2 electric open garage doors. One has no gismos on it and it goes
up and down fine. The other one has that goddamn electric eye that keeps
getting out of line plus when the door is open the goddamn light keeps
coming on when you walk through. Can I just disconnect the wires and
have it work like the sensible door?
In another group they said you can't just short the receiver to make it
work. Why?



--
<<//--------------------\\>>
Van Chocstraw
>>\\--------------------//<<

 

[PeterD]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:17:05 -0500, Van Chocstraw
<boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

I have 2 electric open garage doors. One has no gismos on it and it goes
up and down fine. The other one has that goddamn electric eye that keeps
getting out of line plus when the door is open the goddamn light keeps
coming on when you walk through. Can I just disconnect the wires and
have it work like the sensible door?

You *could* mount the sensors so they are out of the way. Not that I'd
ever do that, it is unsafe, and serves no purpose. If you are worried
about the light, perhaps just remove the bulb?

In another group they said you can't just short the receiver to make it
work. Why?

Because it won't work... <g> Thinks pulses on the sending led, which
must be seen on the receiving end. (There is more to it, there's some
magic with current draws which are monitored... just to prevent guys
like you from doing just this!)

 

[JeffM]

Van Chocstraw wrote:

I have 2 electric open garage doors.

If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d
at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

 

[Van Chocstraw]

PeterD wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:17:05 -0500, Van Chocstraw
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

I have 2 electric open garage doors. One has no gismos on it and it goes
up and down fine. The other one has that goddamn electric eye that keeps
getting out of line plus when the door is open the goddamn light keeps
coming on when you walk through. Can I just disconnect the wires and
have it work like the sensible door?

You *could* mount the sensors so they are out of the way. Not that I'd
ever do that, it is unsafe, and serves no purpose. If you are worried
about the light, perhaps just remove the bulb?

That's what I did. Mounted them up high in the rafters. Now it works

fine and not in my fracking way.

In another group they said you can't just short the receiver to make it
work. Why?

Because it won't work... <g> Thinks pulses on the sending led, which
must be seen on the receiving end. (There is more to it, there's some
magic with current draws which are monitored... just to prevent guys
like you from doing just this!)

--
<<//--------------------\\>>
Van Chocstraw
>>\\--------------------//<<

 

[Van Chocstraw]

JeffM wrote:

Van Chocstraw wrote:
I have 2 electric open garage doors.

If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d
at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Crossposting can be helpful if the message is of interest to a larger
audience.

--
<<//--------------------\\>>
Van Chocstraw
>>\\--------------------//<<

 

[JeffM]

Van Chocstraw wrote:
I have 2 electric open garage doors.

JeffM wrote:
If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d
at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Van Chocstraw wrote:
Crossposting can be helpful
if the message is of interest to a larger audience.

What you did was NOT *cross*-posting.

....and MULTI-posting is NEVER appropriate.
Everyone who reads the question
should be able to easily read ALL the responses--without
having to track down all the groups where you splattered your query.

 

[UCLAN]

JeffM wrote:

If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d
at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Crossposting can be helpful
if the message is of interest to a larger audience.

What you did was NOT *cross*-posting.

...and MULTI-posting is NEVER appropriate.
Everyone who reads the question
should be able to easily read ALL the responses--without
having to track down all the groups where you splattered your query.

Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG in the message header
is plain rude, and few cross-posters bother to do this.

 

[JeffM]

Van Chocstraw wrote:
Crossposting can be helpful
if the message is of interest to a larger audience.

JeffM wrote:
What you did was NOT *cross*-posting.[...]

UCLAN wrote:
Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG
in the message header is plain rude,

I disagree. If a question appears in a group,
ALL replies should also appear in *that* group. To read the answers,
you shouldn't have to leave the group where you read the question.

This turkey doesn't even understand how to make that happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cross-post&oldid=240748598

 

[Van Chocstraw]

UCLAN wrote:

JeffM wrote:

If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d

at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Crossposting can be helpful
if the message is of interest to a larger audience.

What you did was NOT *cross*-posting.

...and MULTI-posting is NEVER appropriate.
Everyone who reads the question
should be able to easily read ALL the responses--without
having to track down all the groups where you splattered your query.

Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG in the message header
is plain rude, and few cross-posters bother to do this.

I can ask the same question in as many groups as I want. They are not
all related and I can't know which one are related or which ones 'you
all' visit. You complaint is bullshit.

--
<<//--------------------\\>>
Van Chocstraw
>>\\--------------------//<<

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Van Chocstraw wrote:

UCLAN wrote:
JeffM wrote:

If you MUST post the *same* question to MULTIPLE groups,
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=door&enc_author=vsSKUx8AAAAF6n2xScac_Tpo28qHjeCVRckf8ajFk5P8t8OC-h8Zzw&scoring=d

at least learn the proper technique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
Crossposting can be helpful
if the message is of interest to a larger audience.
What you did was NOT *cross*-posting.

...and MULTI-posting is NEVER appropriate.
Everyone who reads the question
should be able to easily read ALL the responses--without
having to track down all the groups where you splattered your query.
Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG in the message header
is plain rude, and few cross-posters bother to do this.

I can ask the same question in as many groups as I want. They are not
all related and I can't know which one are related or which ones 'you
all' visit. You complaint is bullshit.

Waiting for help by you is also bullshit.

 

[UCLAN]

JeffM wrote:

Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG
in the message header is plain rude,

I disagree. If a question appears in a group,
ALL replies should also appear in *that* group. To read the answers,
you shouldn't have to leave the group where you read the question.

I send my reply to the poster's email address, if available. As far as
I'm concerned, my reply is specific to *his* problem, not 3 or 4 entire
groups. No "REPLY TO" flag in a crosspost, no reply from me.

 

[JeffM]

Van Chocstraw wrote:

I can ask the same question in as many groups as I want.
They are not all related and I can't know which one are related
or which ones 'you all' visit. You complaint is bullshit.

You are a selfish prick who doesn't follow links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cross-post&oldid=240748598

Why anyone would take you seriously is beyond me.

 

[UCLAN]

Van Chocstraw wrote:

Cross-posting *without* setting up a "FOLLOW-UP TO" NG in the message header
is plain rude, and few cross-posters bother to do this.

I can ask the same question in as many groups as I want. They are not
all related and I can't know which one are related or which ones 'you
all' visit. You complaint is bullshit.

You have no idea what a "FOLLOW-UP" setting in a message header is, do
you? *Not* using this feature is my complaint, not cross-posting in general.
Wake up.

 

[JeffM]

UCLAN wrote:
Cross-posting *without* setting up a "REPLY TO" NG
in the message header is plain rude,

JeffM wrote:
I disagree. If a question appears in a group,
ALL replies should also appear in *that* group. To read the answers,
you shouldn't have to leave the group where you read the question.

UCLAN wrote:
I send my reply to the poster's email address, if available.

See "selfish", below.

As far as I'm concerned, my reply is specific to *his* problem,
not 3 or 4 entire groups.

If the question is not relavent to those groups,

it shouldn't BE in those groups to start with.

No "REPLY TO" flag in a crosspost, no reply from me.

You and I see Usenet in *very* different ways.

Your view parallels the OP's.

OTOH, I see Usenet as a **community**
where people can learn from other people's experiences--not as a
I-don't-care-about-anyone-else-as-long-as-I-get-MY-problem-solved
kind of place.
In this context, I often use the word "selfish".
In extreme cases, I include the word "prick":
news:9b285880-f424-42c6-9a90-ae988b5bba3a@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com

....and you don't appear to make a distinction
between MULTI-posting and cross-posting.
*That* is the distinction I have been trying to make.

 

[UCLAN]

JeffM wrote:

You and I see Usenet in *very* different ways.
Your view parallels the OP's.

Quite the opposite, really. I am against cross-posting and multi-
posting.

OTOH, I see Usenet as a **community**
where people can learn from other people's experiences--not as a
I-don't-care-about-anyone-else-as-long-as-I-get-MY-problem-solved
kind of place.
In this context, I often use the word "selfish".
In extreme cases, I include the word "prick":
news:9b285880-f424-42c6-9a90-ae988b5bba3a@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com

...and you don't appear to make a distinction
between MULTI-posting and cross-posting.
*That* is the distinction I have been trying to make.

I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame thread
appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With multi-posting, this does
not occur. The best scenario is a cross-posted message using the "Follow-Up
To" provision. That's why it is there, but it seems the OE crowd hasn't
found it yet.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:53:54 -0000, UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

JeffM wrote:

You and I see Usenet in *very* different ways.
Your view parallels the OP's.

Quite the opposite, really. I am against cross-posting and multi-
posting.

OTOH, I see Usenet as a **community**
where people can learn from other people's experiences--not as a
I-don't-care-about-anyone-else-as-long-as-I-get-MY-problem-solved
kind of place.
In this context, I often use the word "selfish".
In extreme cases, I include the word "prick":
news:9b285880-f424-42c6-9a90-ae988b5bba3a@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com

...and you don't appear to make a distinction
between MULTI-posting and cross-posting.
*That* is the distinction I have been trying to make.

I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame thread
appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With multi-posting, this does
not occur. The best scenario is a cross-posted message using the "Follow-Up
To" provision. That's why it is there, but it seems the OE crowd hasn't
found it yet.

Followup-to is a nuisance. You end up replying to a post and having it go to an unexpected group. This is why I've set up my newsreader to delete all posts using the followup-to header so I don't even see them.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Which sexual position produces the ugliest children?
Ask your mum.

 

[UCLAN]

Peter Hucker wrote:

I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame thread
appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With multi-posting, this
does not occur. The best scenario is a cross-posted message using the
"Follow-Up To" provision. That's why it is there, but it seems the OE
crowd hasn't found it yet.

Followup-to is a nuisance. You end up replying to a post and having it go
to an unexpected group. This is why I've set up my newsreader to delete
all posts using the followup-to header so I don't even see them.

You must learn to actually *look at* the TO/NEWSGROUP section of the
header before you send the message.

 

[IanM]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:53:54 -0000, UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

JeffM wrote:

You and I see Usenet in *very* different ways. Your view
parallels the OP's.
Quite the opposite, really. I am against cross-posting and multi-
posting.

OTOH, I see Usenet as a **community** where people can learn from
other people's experiences--not as a
I-don't-care-about-anyone-else-as-long-as-I-get-MY-problem-solved
kind of place. In this context, I often use the word "selfish".
In extreme cases, I include the word "prick":
news:9b285880-f424-42c6-9a90-ae988b5bba3a@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com


...and you don't appear to make a distinction between
MULTI-posting and cross-posting. *That* is the distinction I have
been trying to make.
I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame
thread appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With
multi-posting, this does not occur. The best scenario is a
cross-posted message using the "Follow-Up To" provision. That's why
it is there, but it seems the OE crowd hasn't found it yet.

Followup-to is a nuisance. You end up replying to a post and having
it go to an unexpected group. This is why I've set up my newsreader
to delete all posts using the followup-to header so I don't even see
them.

Which is why the first line of the body should always clearly state

*where* followups are set to.

It would be worth your time to modify the filter to highlite the posts
that Followup to groups you are active in instead of deleting them.

Trolls & vandals misuse followups to flood other groups, but that's no
reason for those of us with a clue to avoid them.

--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL:

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:48:16 -0000, UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame thread
appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With multi-posting, this
does not occur. The best scenario is a cross-posted message using the
"Follow-Up To" provision. That's why it is there, but it seems the OE
crowd hasn't found it yet.

Followup-to is a nuisance. You end up replying to a post and having it go
to an unexpected group. This is why I've set up my newsreader to delete
all posts using the followup-to header so I don't even see them.

You must learn to actually *look at* the TO/NEWSGROUP section of the
header before you send the message.

Why should I have to waste my time doing this?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What's the most sensitive part of your anatomy when you are masturbating?
Your ears.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:59:48 -0000, IanM <look.in.my.sig@totally.invalid> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:53:54 -0000, UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

JeffM wrote:

You and I see Usenet in *very* different ways. Your view
parallels the OP's.
Quite the opposite, really. I am against cross-posting and multi-
posting.

OTOH, I see Usenet as a **community** where people can learn from
other people's experiences--not as a
I-don't-care-about-anyone-else-as-long-as-I-get-MY-problem-solved
kind of place. In this context, I often use the word "selfish".
In extreme cases, I include the word "prick":
news:9b285880-f424-42c6-9a90-ae988b5bba3a@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com


...and you don't appear to make a distinction between
MULTI-posting and cross-posting. *That* is the distinction I have
been trying to make.
I make a very clear distinction: With cross-posting, the same lame
thread appears on three or four or more newsgroups. With
multi-posting, this does not occur. The best scenario is a
cross-posted message using the "Follow-Up To" provision. That's why
it is there, but it seems the OE crowd hasn't found it yet.

Followup-to is a nuisance. You end up replying to a post and having
it go to an unexpected group. This is why I've set up my newsreader
to delete all posts using the followup-to header so I don't even see
them.

Which is why the first line of the body should always clearly state
*where* followups are set to.

It would be worth your time to modify the filter to highlite the posts
that Followup to groups you are active in instead of deleting them.

I used to highlight them so I could fill them in and/or killfile them, but I lost interest and just delete them.

Trolls & vandals misuse followups to flood other groups, but that's no
reason for those of us with a clue to avoid them.

I've yet to hear of a useful reason for followupping.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Instructions:
It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir - gently, and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak. And then you put in the milk.
..
..
..
How to make coffee - what were you thinking of?