| Ron Baker, Pluralitas! 2007-07-07, 4:33 am |
|
"Tommy Tootles" <tommy@toot.com> wrote in message
news:cHCji.20841$RX.6448@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> John Smith I wrote:
>
>
> What *I* discovered is -not- the point. And for all intents and purposes,
> "AM" and DSB are two distinct (but certainly related) things. Different
> hardware to create (balanced modulator for DSB vs high level plate
> modulation for 'classic' AM), more power required for AM and finally, back
> in the day, the FCC had -different- emission designators for AM vs DSB.
> Now, if they were the same, why would you think the FCC gave
> them -different- emission designators?
You make good, relevant points there.
>
> What IS the point is:
>
> 1) The original poster asked a question about "x".
>
> 2) You gave a half-assed answer to "y".
>
> And then, you had the bare faced gall to accuse the original poster of
> being on drugs!
>
> Look at the good news--even though you gave a partially wrong answer to a
> question that wasn't even asked, you at least resolved the issue of which
> of the two of you is on drugs... ;-)
>
I would agree with the above also, but don't
wish to be provocative. ;)
|