A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Reception - prevailing conditions.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 24th 13, 01:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,237
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:31:19 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Steve Thackery wrote:
Ian Field wrote:

I never said it was a callsign.

http://g7kse.co.uk/tag/msf60/


The fact is clear: 'MSF' has never properly been called 'MSF60', and
some radio amateur calling it that doesn't make it so. It's wrong,
simple as that.

Who cares what it's called as long as you understand what he means

MSF on 60kHz

and one of my MSF clocks also isn't updating, could be local VLF
interference?

Yes. It's that new 6G stuff
  #22  
Old May 24th 13, 03:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
ian field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,101
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.



"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Steve Terry wrote:

Who cares what it's called as long as you understand what he means


Because in a sarcastic reply to Brian he said this: "The name 'MSF60'
is a bit of a giveaway". Unfortunately, by trying to be a smartarse
he's made a fool of himself; it has never been named 'MSF60'.


At least smartarses are smarter than self appointed net kops.

  #23  
Old May 24th 13, 04:27 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

Ian Field wrote:

At least smartarses are smarter than self appointed net kops.


Yeah, too right! I hate net kops. Do you know of any in this group?

--
SteveT
  #24  
Old May 24th 13, 05:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
ian field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,101
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.



"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Ian Field wrote:

At least smartarses are smarter than self appointed net kops.


Yeah, too right! I hate net kops. Do you know of any in this group?



And you don't even know you're doing it - sheesh!

  #25  
Old May 24th 13, 07:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

Ian Field wrote:

And you don't even know you're doing it - sheesh!


I don't think you've any idea what "self-appointed net cops" are. They
try to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do. I've never
done that, and I invite you to search for as long as you like - you
won't find a single instance. Go on - take a look.

What I have done - to you - is proved that you were mistaken about the
term "MSF60", there being no such term. That isn't remotely net
coppery, it's just making a fool of you. I've been made a fool of
plenty of times. Deal with it.

--
SteveT
  #26  
Old May 24th 13, 08:27 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
ian field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,101
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.



"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Ian Field wrote:

And you don't even know you're doing it - sheesh!


I don't think you've any idea what "self-appointed net cops" are. They
try to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do. I've never
done that, and I invite you to search for as long as you like - you
won't find a single instance. Go on - take a look.

What I have done - to you - is proved that you were mistaken about the
term "MSF60", there being no such term. That isn't remotely net
coppery, it's just making a fool of you. I've been made a fool of
plenty of times. Deal with it.


You were having a go at me for perceived sarcasm at Brian.

You're a self appointed net kop - deal with it.

  #27  
Old May 24th 13, 09:54 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
cmwb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
.....
done that, and I invite you to search for as long as you like - you
won't find a single instance. Go on - take a look.

What I have done - to you - is proved that you were mistaken about the
term "MSF60", there being no such term.
--
SteveT


Err Steve, a Google search does return results for MSF60, and here is one of
them -
http://www.compuphase.com/mp3/h0420_timecode.htm

Regards
cmwb


  #28  
Old May 24th 13, 10:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

cmwb wrote:

Err Steve, a Google search does return results for MSF60, and here is
one of them - http://www.compuphase.com/mp3/h0420_timecode.htm


It's wrong. A google search will return results for almost anything.
There is only one definitive source: the National Physical Laboratory.
Here it is:

http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technol...io-time-signal

or you might prefer this:

http://www.npl.co.uk/server.php?q=ms...h&action=index


--
SteveT
  #29  
Old May 24th 13, 10:55 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.

Ian Field wrote:

You were having a go at me for perceived sarcasm at Brian.


Naaah, sorry, mate, but it doesn't fly. You might be better to say "Oh
yes, you are right, thanks for pointing that out."

--
SteveT
  #30  
Old May 25th 13, 12:39 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
ian field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,101
Default Reception - prevailing conditions.



"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Ian Field wrote:

You were having a go at me for perceived sarcasm at Brian.


Naaah, sorry, mate, but it doesn't fly. You might be better to say "Oh
yes, you are right, thanks for pointing that out."


Why would I do that when you're not!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.