J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:01:27 -0500, "HapticZ"
<hapticz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One can only hope...
--
JF
<hapticz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
---
One can only hope...
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:01:27 -0500, "HapticZ"
<hapticz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It's merely being polite and considerate of your readers, something
you obviously feel to be unimportant or which you refuse to consider
because you feel it's too much like following orders and you'll be
_damned_ if you'll let that happen.
--
JF
<hapticz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
---
It's merely being polite and considerate of your readers, something
you obviously feel to be unimportant or which you refuse to consider
because you feel it's too much like following orders and you'll be
_damned_ if you'll let that happen.
--
JF
S
Suzy
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:l58hi397hoh1l60jft5ckml95tc1prp1qo@4ax.com...
entire Usenet whom I would describe as thoroughly nasty, to a pathological
level. (Maybe they're the same person, even
). I do know many many Usenet
users have killfiled them/him to avoid it, and that those are somewhat
miffed by seeing it quoted and so getting "through the barrier" as it were.
So I'm not alone. My skin is pretty thick too...
news:l58hi397hoh1l60jft5ckml95tc1prp1qo@4ax.com...
Fair point, though I disagree. There are only two regular posters on theOn Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:14:30 +1100, "Suzy" <not@valid> wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news
HapticZ wrote:
so i have to manually move my default cursor all the way to the bottom
of
the msg and then start typing? that will just wear me right out!
or should i set the option to "not include original message"?
You are supposed to review the quoted text and clip out any parts that
is
not needed to remind others what you are replying to, before you post.
It
is customary to add in (snip) or 8< (scissors symbol) if you clip the
last
poster.
Then, you either insert your words directly below lines that you are
reacting to, or post your entire message at the bottom. This is the
standard for Usenet and just good manners. Remember, this is not an
reply to one person who knows what they have already said, but an
archived
post that is part of a conversation presented to the entire world, for
anyone to join in. Normal capitalization, spelling and punctuation are
also appreciated. It is hard enough to interpret many posts, without
also
having to decode slang and abbreviations. This is not a cell phone text
message.
You are certainly free to do whatever you like, but if you can't be
bothered to think about the effort it takes others to understand what
you
write, don't be surprised if many kill file you and never see anything
else you ever post.
Bye bye.
John Popelish
Well explained John. But there is another point. If you are replying
protesting at foul language or nasty posting (a regular perpetrator of
which
appears here occasionally) be careful not to requote his foulness as
others
may have kill filed to avoid his nastiness!
---
Suzy,
Even though you may find it repugnant to read what you perceive as
"foul language" or "nasty posting", I find it even more repugnant
that you would have others censor others' posts in order to comply
with what your delicate sensibilities dictate is 'proper' behavior.
This is, after all, USENET, arguably the last bastion of truly free
speech on the planet, so if you want to play here and not be
perpetually offended by some of the other players, I suggest you
grow thicker skin.
--
JF
entire Usenet whom I would describe as thoroughly nasty, to a pathological
level. (Maybe they're the same person, even
). I do know many many Usenet users have killfiled them/him to avoid it, and that those are somewhat
miffed by seeing it quoted and so getting "through the barrier" as it were.
So I'm not alone. My skin is pretty thick too...
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:29:57 +1100, "Suzy" <not@valid> wrote:
So you think that you should be the arbiter of what's fit to post
and what isn't and that your guidelines should be rigorously adhered
to?
Would you also assess penalties to violators of "Suzy's rules of
order"?
---
Your naiveté astounds me!
Just for two, [groups] have you never visited alt.kooks or soc.men?
---
Misery loves company?
---
If you're upset to the point where you want to silence them or
modify their behavior because of what you consider to be an
affrontery to _your_ good taste, even when you're not being targeted
by their rancor, then I suggest your skin is still pretty thin and
you either learn to silence them / change their behavior with
incontrovertible arguments or linger in a hot brine bath for some
time.
--
JF
---"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:l58hi397hoh1l60jft5ckml95tc1prp1qo@4ax.com...
Suzy,
Even though you may find it repugnant to read what you perceive as
"foul language" or "nasty posting", I find it even more repugnant
that you would have others censor others' posts in order to comply
with what your delicate sensibilities dictate is 'proper' behavior.
This is, after all, USENET, arguably the last bastion of truly free
speech on the planet, so if you want to play here and not be
perpetually offended by some of the other players, I suggest you
grow thicker skin.
--
JF
Fair point, though I disagree.
So you think that you should be the arbiter of what's fit to post
and what isn't and that your guidelines should be rigorously adhered
to?
Would you also assess penalties to violators of "Suzy's rules of
order"?
---
---
Your naiveté astounds me!
Just for two, [groups] have you never visited alt.kooks or soc.men?
---
---(Maybe they're the same person, even
users have killfiled them/him to avoid it, and that those are somewhat
miffed by seeing it quoted and so getting "through the barrier" as it were.
So I'm not alone.
Misery loves company?
---
---
If you're upset to the point where you want to silence them or
modify their behavior because of what you consider to be an
affrontery to _your_ good taste, even when you're not being targeted
by their rancor, then I suggest your skin is still pretty thin and
you either learn to silence them / change their behavior with
incontrovertible arguments or linger in a hot brine bath for some
time.
--
JF
S
Suzy
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ct5ii3l18veg7n3ivnb56g9co59lkmr307@4ax.com...
news:ct5ii3l18veg7n3ivnb56g9co59lkmr307@4ax.com...
Yes, well I suppose I meant in those newsgroups I frequent!On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:29:57 +1100, "Suzy" <not@valid> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:l58hi397hoh1l60jft5ckml95tc1prp1qo@4ax.com...
Suzy,
Even though you may find it repugnant to read what you perceive as
"foul language" or "nasty posting", I find it even more repugnant
that you would have others censor others' posts in order to comply
with what your delicate sensibilities dictate is 'proper' behavior.
This is, after all, USENET, arguably the last bastion of truly free
speech on the planet, so if you want to play here and not be
perpetually offended by some of the other players, I suggest you
grow thicker skin.
--
JF
Fair point, though I disagree.
---
So you think that you should be the arbiter of what's fit to post
and what isn't and that your guidelines should be rigorously adhered
to?
Would you also assess penalties to violators of "Suzy's rules of
order"?
---
There are only two regular posters on the
entire Usenet whom I would describe as thoroughly nasty, to a pathological
level.
---
Your naiveté astounds me!
Just for two, [groups] have you never visited alt.kooks or soc.men?
---
(Maybe they're the same person, even
users have killfiled them/him to avoid it, and that those are somewhat
miffed by seeing it quoted and so getting "through the barrier" as it
were.
So I'm not alone.
---
Misery loves company?
---
My skin is pretty thick too...
---
If you're upset to the point where you want to silence them or
modify their behavior because of what you consider to be an
affrontery to _your_ good taste, even when you're not being targeted
by their rancor, then I suggest your skin is still pretty thin and
you either learn to silence them / change their behavior with
incontrovertible arguments or linger in a hot brine bath for some
time.
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:32:22 +1100, "Suzy" <not@valid> wrote:
Aren't you sure?
--
JF
---"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ct5ii3l18veg7n3ivnb56g9co59lkmr307@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:29:57 +1100, "Suzy" <not@valid> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:l58hi397hoh1l60jft5ckml95tc1prp1qo@4ax.com...
Suzy,
Even though you may find it repugnant to read what you perceive as
"foul language" or "nasty posting", I find it even more repugnant
that you would have others censor others' posts in order to comply
with what your delicate sensibilities dictate is 'proper' behavior.
This is, after all, USENET, arguably the last bastion of truly free
speech on the planet, so if you want to play here and not be
perpetually offended by some of the other players, I suggest you
grow thicker skin.
--
JF
Fair point, though I disagree.
---
So you think that you should be the arbiter of what's fit to post
and what isn't and that your guidelines should be rigorously adhered
to?
Would you also assess penalties to violators of "Suzy's rules of
order"?
---
There are only two regular posters on the
entire Usenet whom I would describe as thoroughly nasty, to a pathological
level.
---
Your naiveté astounds me!
Just for two, [groups] have you never visited alt.kooks or soc.men?
---
(Maybe they're the same person, even
users have killfiled them/him to avoid it, and that those are somewhat
miffed by seeing it quoted and so getting "through the barrier" as it
were.
So I'm not alone.
---
Misery loves company?
---
My skin is pretty thick too...
---
If you're upset to the point where you want to silence them or
modify their behavior because of what you consider to be an
affrontery to _your_ good taste, even when you're not being targeted
by their rancor, then I suggest your skin is still pretty thin and
you either learn to silence them / change their behavior with
incontrovertible arguments or linger in a hot brine bath for some
time.
--
JF
Yes, well I suppose I meant in those newsgroups I frequent!
Aren't you sure?
--
JF
N
Nobody
Guest
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:11:27 -0500, John Popelish wrote:
I think that some of the posters would benefit from switching to Pan; you
get a warning dialog if the "message is mostly quoted text" (and also for
"some lines are more than 80 columns wide" and "crossposting without
setting Followup-To").
Yep, pruning the quoted text is also good. And often lacking in this group.
I think that some of the posters would benefit from switching to Pan; you
get a warning dialog if the "message is mostly quoted text" (and also for
"some lines are more than 80 columns wide" and "crossposting without
setting Followup-To").
N
Nobody
Guest
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:13 -0500, John Fields wrote:
Presumably someone who is protesting at a post already disagrees with the
tone. In which case, why reproduce it verbatim?
In cases where this happens, it isn't necessarily a conscious choice, but
an oversight in the heat of the moment.
I see no problem in Suzy asking people to actually consider whether to
quote the text verbatim, rather than doing so just because that's what you
always do when you reply to someone.
Maybe you missed the "If you are replying protesting at ..." part?
Presumably someone who is protesting at a post already disagrees with the
tone. In which case, why reproduce it verbatim?
In cases where this happens, it isn't necessarily a conscious choice, but
an oversight in the heat of the moment.
I see no problem in Suzy asking people to actually consider whether to
quote the text verbatim, rather than doing so just because that's what you
always do when you reply to someone.
S
serpa4
Guest
Please, I need help. I just ran 12v straight to the fan and it ran on
high. No problems with interference. With that out of the way, I
decided to not put those magnet things on the motor wires. However, I
did put them on all the wires from the water/meth controller with no
luck. Its strange that the controller works fine when the fan is on
high and medium, but only interferes when the fan is on low.
1) Should I put capacitors on the fan motors? If so, what size, type,
etc.
2) What should I try next?
Thanks in advance for any help.
high. No problems with interference. With that out of the way, I
decided to not put those magnet things on the motor wires. However, I
did put them on all the wires from the water/meth controller with no
luck. Its strange that the controller works fine when the fan is on
high and medium, but only interferes when the fan is on low.
1) Should I put capacitors on the fan motors? If so, what size, type,
etc.
2) What should I try next?
Thanks in advance for any help.
H
HapticZ
Guest
soon enough!
H
HapticZ
Guest
soooner
H
HapticZ
Guest
achtung! been there , done it. no more!
H
HapticZ
Guest
any improvement when run straight at 12v? whats different?
is the fan air flow affecting anything? wire shake/air flow
elsewhere/sensors?
you are doing the right thing as you eleiminate each "good" condition,
make sure to write it down in some form, at least to keep track of what
works,& what doesnt too
wish u were close enough, i'd come over and try to help.
is the fan air flow affecting anything? wire shake/air flow
elsewhere/sensors?
you are doing the right thing as you eleiminate each "good" condition,
make sure to write it down in some form, at least to keep track of what
works,& what doesnt too
wish u were close enough, i'd come over and try to help.
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:02:09 +0000, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Nope.
---
In most cases, the content which is being complained about must be
left intact in order for the complaint to make sense. For example,
assume that I find your next sentence offensive, so I prune it and
reply to it:
<SNIP>
I disagree with that, and I find it offensive, so I've snipped it in
case anyone who reads this might also find your statement offensive.
Confusing, huh?
Anyone who wasn't familiar with what you'd written would have to go
back a post to find out what you'd said that was offensive (and take
the chance of being offended) just to find out what was going on,
so, just out of courtesy I'd leave all the shits, pisses, and fucks
that you'd written in my reply.
---
I have no problem with that either, but that's not what Suzy was
asking for. What she wants is for everyone to prune what _she_
considers to be offensive material in order that if she happens to
come across a reply to a post which contained material which was
offensive to her she could read the reply without being subjected to
that material.
--
JF
wrote:
---
Nope.
---
---
In most cases, the content which is being complained about must be
left intact in order for the complaint to make sense. For example,
assume that I find your next sentence offensive, so I prune it and
reply to it:
<SNIP>
I disagree with that, and I find it offensive, so I've snipped it in
case anyone who reads this might also find your statement offensive.
Confusing, huh?
Anyone who wasn't familiar with what you'd written would have to go
back a post to find out what you'd said that was offensive (and take
the chance of being offended) just to find out what was going on,
so, just out of courtesy I'd leave all the shits, pisses, and fucks
that you'd written in my reply.
---
---
I have no problem with that either, but that's not what Suzy was
asking for. What she wants is for everyone to prune what _she_
considers to be offensive material in order that if she happens to
come across a reply to a post which contained material which was
offensive to her she could read the reply without being subjected to
that material.
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:28:12 -0500, "HapticZ" <hapticz@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
wrote:
---
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:28:28 -0500, "HapticZ" <hapticz@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
wrote:
---
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:35:35 -0500, "HapticZ" <hapticz@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
wrote:
---
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:42:52 -0500, "HapticZ" <hapticz@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
wrote:
---
You really _should_ leave enough of the message you're replying to
intact in order to let whoever reads your moronic, self-serving
posts know what you're talking about.
--
JF
J
John Popelish
Guest
serpa4 wrote:
mechanism is wired. Evidently it is the speed control that
is causing th noise, not the motors. The noise is probably
coming from the speed controller producing fast edged pulses
of 12 volts to the motors. The ferrite beads might work,
but they would have to be placed near the controller to
contain its noise. And it may help to put a capacitor
across the 12 volt supply lines feeding the controller, so
its pulses don't bleed back into the 12 volt distribution.
I need to see more details about how the fan speed control
mechanism is wired. Evidently it is the speed control that
is causing th noise, not the motors. The noise is probably
coming from the speed controller producing fast edged pulses
of 12 volts to the motors. The ferrite beads might work,
but they would have to be placed near the controller to
contain its noise. And it may help to put a capacitor
across the 12 volt supply lines feeding the controller, so
its pulses don't bleed back into the 12 volt distribution.
J
John Popelish
Guest
John Popelish wrote:
For instance, it will make a big difference in the fan
wiring spreading interference if the controller has a pair
of wires feeding the motors, of it it has only 1 wire
feeding the motors, with the other terminal of the motors is
connected to the nearest ground.
For instance, it will make a big difference in the fan
wiring spreading interference if the controller has a pair
of wires feeding the motors, of it it has only 1 wire
feeding the motors, with the other terminal of the motors is
connected to the nearest ground.