J
John Fields
protocol, rigid social levels, strict grammatix, and so forth. just bores
me to death............
protocol, rigid social levels, strict grammatix, and so forth. just bores
me to death............
protocol, rigid social levels, strict grammatix, and so forth. just bores
me to death............
John Fields said:---
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.![]()
Fair point, though I disagree.
There are only two regular posters on the
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...
John Fields said: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). 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.
---
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.
John Fields said:news:[email protected]...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.![]()
---
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). 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.
---
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.
Yes, well I suppose I meant in those newsgroups I frequent!
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.
---
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.
Maybe you missed the "If you are replying protesting at ..." part?
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.
soon enough!
soooner
achtung! been there , done it. no more!
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.
serpa4 said: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.
(snip)John said:(snip)
I need to see more details about how the fan speed control mechanism is
wired.