On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:52:53 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:18:08 +0200, Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk>
wrote:
On 7/20/26 18:55, john larkin wrote:and almost every RF connector is also available in RP (reverse
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:48:12 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Many years ago I was in Germany and had to translate a technical document >>>>> into English, my colleagues found it hilarious when I described connectors
as Male and Female-thought I had a sex obsession.
And some connectors, like SMBs, can have female plugs.
Kinky.
and there are hermaphrodites where there is only one type and they can mate >>
polarity). For example:
"AMPHENOL Reverse Polarity RF Connectors" >><https://www.mouser.com/catalog/645/1162.pdf>
Perverse polarity.
John Larkin
FCC Part 15.203 ><https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCCBut nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete
system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing
low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users
wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for certification.
FCC Part 15.203 <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
On 7/26/2026 12:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCC
demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete
system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The
brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing
low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior
performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users
wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless
microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for
certification.
FCC Part 15.203
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
But nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
sold... and used in place of the "standard" connector available
on the purchased replacement.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 03:40:39 -0700, Don YProblem is antenna cable (RG213U) length. Connector at the base station is reversed so I have to make a cable with mating connector *or* alter the base station (no-no) to accept a more conventional connector.
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 12:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCC
demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete
system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The
brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing
low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior
performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users
wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless
microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for
certification.
FCC Part 15.203
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
But nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
sold... and used in place of the "standard" connector available
on the purchased replacement.
I have a collection of appropriate jumper cables and adapters to deal
with the Wi-Fi antenna connector compatibility problem. Most can be
easily purchased online. However, I had to machine my own for obscure connectors, such as Metricom/Ricochet radios.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
Range extenders (bi-directional amplifiers), DECT repeaters, cell
phone repeaters, RF power amplifiers, connector kits that replace a
low gain handset/base antenna, coax cable extensions, rooftop
antennas, phone patch, Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar, etc. Legality
varies with location, country and jurisdiction.
On 7/26/2026 10:37 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 03:40:39 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 12:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCC
demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete >>>> system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The >>>> brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing
low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior
performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users
wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless
microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for
certification.
FCC Part 15.203
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
But nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
sold... and used in place of the "standard" connector available
on the purchased replacement.
I have a collection of appropriate jumper cables and adapters to deal
with the Wi-Fi antenna connector compatibility problem. Most can be
easily purchased online. However, I had to machine my own for obscure
connectors, such as Metricom/Ricochet radios.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
Range extenders (bi-directional amplifiers), DECT repeaters, cell
phone repeaters, RF power amplifiers, connector kits that replace a
low gain handset/base antenna, coax cable extensions, rooftop
antennas, phone patch, Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar, etc. Legality
varies with location, country and jurisdiction.
Problem is antenna cable (RG213U) length. Connector at the base station is >reversed so I have to make a cable with mating connector *or* alter the base >station (no-no) to accept a more conventional connector.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:07:36 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 10:37 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 03:40:39 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 12:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCC
demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete >>>>> system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The >>>>> brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing >>>>> low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior
performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users
wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless >>>>> microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for
certification.
FCC Part 15.203
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna >>>>> other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with >>>>> the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be >>>>> replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
But nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
sold... and used in place of the "standard" connector available
on the purchased replacement.
I have a collection of appropriate jumper cables and adapters to deal
with the Wi-Fi antenna connector compatibility problem. Most can be
easily purchased online. However, I had to machine my own for obscure
connectors, such as Metricom/Ricochet radios.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
Range extenders (bi-directional amplifiers), DECT repeaters, cell
phone repeaters, RF power amplifiers, connector kits that replace a
low gain handset/base antenna, coax cable extensions, rooftop
antennas, phone patch, Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar, etc. Legality
varies with location, country and jurisdiction.
Problem is antenna cable (RG213U) length. Connector at the base station is >> reversed so I have to make a cable with mating connector *or* alter the base >> station (no-no) to accept a more conventional connector.
RG-213/u is nice coax cable, but I prefer LMR-400. Same outside
diameter and less loss. I'm too lazy to check prices, but I seem to
recall that LMR-400 is also less expensive.
I usually run my outside antennas with LMR-400 coax cable. However, I
do NOT plug the heavy coaxial cable directly in the radio. Instead, I
have a short jumper cable between the coaxial cable and the radio to
prevent any excessive stresses. Losses from about 1 foot of more
flexible cable are easily tolerated.
This jumper cable is also where
the RP adapters usually live. I sometimes do the same thing on the
antenna end, in racks, in automobile installs, where a more flexible transition cable will prevent breaking connectors.
I can't imagine what such heavy and stiff coaxial cable is doing
directly attached to a light weight cordless phone base. Are you
attempting to dominate the cordless phone spectrum in your
neighborhood?
"RG213 vs LMR400" <https://www.awcwire.com/allied-university/this-vs-that/rg213-vs-lmr400>
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone ><2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> >wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:31:34 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Some people call a PCB trace a "run."
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
On 27/07/2026 16:34, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:31:34 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Some people call a PCB trace a "run."
'Track' is (or was) more common here.
On 27/07/2026 16:34, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:31:34 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Some people call a PCB trace a "run."
'Track' is (or was) more common here.
On 20/07/2026 16:54, john larkin wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
Can be messy, the 'jacks' is quite commonly used in Ireland for what we
call a 'khazi'.
On 7/26/2026 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:07:36 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 10:37 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 03:40:39 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 7/26/2026 12:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The original RP connectors were contrived as a solution to the FCC >>>>>> demand that Wi-Fi devices and antennas must be certified as a complete >>>>>> system and therefore must be tested and sold as a complete system. The >>>>>> brilliant FCC bureaucrats were trying to prevent users from replacing >>>>>> low gain Wi-Fi antennas with larger antennas that offered superior >>>>>> performance. Good intentions, but not what manufacturers and users >>>>>> wanted. The FCC eventually allowed some exceptions, such as wireless >>>>>> microphones, but unique antenna connectors are still required for
certification.
FCC Part 15.203
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol1-part15-subpartC.pdf>
"An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna >>>>>> other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with >>>>>> the device.
(...)
The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be >>>>>> replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited."
But nothing prevents reversed connectors from being produced and
sold... and used in place of the "standard" connector available
on the purchased replacement.
I have a collection of appropriate jumper cables and adapters to deal
with the Wi-Fi antenna connector compatibility problem. Most can be
easily purchased online. However, I had to machine my own for obscure >>>> connectors, such as Metricom/Ricochet radios.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
Range extenders (bi-directional amplifiers), DECT repeaters, cell
phone repeaters, RF power amplifiers, connector kits that replace a
low gain handset/base antenna, coax cable extensions, rooftop
antennas, phone patch, Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar, etc. Legality
varies with location, country and jurisdiction.
Problem is antenna cable (RG213U) length. Connector at the base station is >>> reversed so I have to make a cable with mating connector *or* alter the base
station (no-no) to accept a more conventional connector.
RG-213/u is nice coax cable, but I prefer LMR-400. Same outside
diameter and less loss. I'm too lazy to check prices, but I seem to
recall that LMR-400 is also less expensive.
No idea. The antenna came with RG213U and "the right connectors".
I usually run my outside antennas with LMR-400 coax cable. However, I
do NOT plug the heavy coaxial cable directly in the radio. Instead, I
have a short jumper cable between the coaxial cable and the radio to
prevent any excessive stresses. Losses from about 1 foot of more
flexible cable are easily tolerated.
Ah, that's worth knowing. The cable will be in the walls but will need
to exit (at a Jbox) and connect to the base unit. Making that sort
of a bend AND allowing for the base unit to be removable (disconnectable?)
is a tough challenge.
This jumper cable is also where
the RP adapters usually live. I sometimes do the same thing on the
antenna end, in racks, in automobile installs, where a more flexible
transition cable will prevent breaking connectors.
I can't imagine what such heavy and stiff coaxial cable is doing
directly attached to a light weight cordless phone base. Are you
attempting to dominate the cordless phone spectrum in your
neighborhood?
900mW handset. With the *indoor* antenna on the base unit, I can
get about half a mile of coverage in this "low spot". I am hoping
roof mounting the antenna (hence the length of coax) will let me get
beyond the subdivision -- a mile would be nice.
I'll build the handset into the car and let it connect to The House
for those cases when I leave the house (or am approaching the house)
and need to "tell it" something (or, have it tell ME something: "You
left the washing machine on; should I turn it off or will you be right
back?"
It's the "narrow & long" pipe to the car contrasted to the short and fat
one that is used to deliver video, etc. when "near" the house.
[I don't want to have to develop any radios so will just repurpose
COTS devices within the constraints under which they are licensed]
"RG213 vs LMR400"
<https://www.awcwire.com/allied-university/this-vs-that/rg213-vs-lmr400>
I have a collection of appropriate jumper cables and adapters to deal >>>>> with the Wi-Fi antenna connector compatibility problem. Most can be >>>>> easily purchased online. However, I had to machine my own for obscure >>>>> connectors, such as Metricom/Ricochet radios.
My cordless phone suffers from such a constraint. I wonder
how I'll get around it?
Range extenders (bi-directional amplifiers), DECT repeaters, cell
phone repeaters, RF power amplifiers, connector kits that replace a
low gain handset/base antenna, coax cable extensions, rooftop
antennas, phone patch, Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar, etc. Legality >>>>> varies with location, country and jurisdiction.
Problem is antenna cable (RG213U) length. Connector at the base station is
reversed so I have to make a cable with mating connector *or* alter the base
station (no-no) to accept a more conventional connector.
RG-213/u is nice coax cable, but I prefer LMR-400. Same outside
diameter and less loss. I'm too lazy to check prices, but I seem to
recall that LMR-400 is also less expensive.
No idea. The antenna came with RG213U and "the right connectors".
From the size of the connector and coax cable, my guess(tm) is that
your cordless phone and antenna are operating either at 2.4 to 2.45GHz
(Wi-Fi or ISM) or on DECT frequencies (about 2GHz).
I usually run my outside antennas with LMR-400 coax cable. However, I
do NOT plug the heavy coaxial cable directly in the radio. Instead, I
have a short jumper cable between the coaxial cable and the radio to
prevent any excessive stresses. Losses from about 1 foot of more
flexible cable are easily tolerated.
Ah, that's worth knowing. The cable will be in the walls but will need
to exit (at a Jbox) and connect to the base unit. Making that sort
of a bend AND allowing for the base unit to be removable (disconnectable?) >> is a tough challenge.
You might want to check the data sheet for your RG213/u coax cable for
the minimum bend radius.
This can vary by manufacturer. The
rule-of-thumb is nothing less than 10 times the cable OD (outside
diameter). For about 0.405 inch outside diameter, that will be about
4 inches minimum bend radius. That will be a very tight fit into a
common 4 x 4 x 1.5 inch junction box.
Assuming you're using N type coax connectors, you can insert a right
angle connector to deal with the minimum bend radius problem. <https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=right%20angle%20n%20connector>
I strongly recommend you use crimp type RF connectors instead of screw together solderable connectors.
You might also need waterproofing if you use outdoor RF connectors.
Adhesive lined shrink tubing works, but is a mess to repair or remove.
I just spiral wrap the connector with 1/2" wide Teflon plumbing tape
followed by a layer of Scotch 88 "all weather" electrical tape, to
hold the Teflon tape in place.
This jumper cable is also where
the RP adapters usually live. I sometimes do the same thing on the
antenna end, in racks, in automobile installs, where a more flexible
transition cable will prevent breaking connectors.
I can't imagine what such heavy and stiff coaxial cable is doing
directly attached to a light weight cordless phone base. Are you
attempting to dominate the cordless phone spectrum in your
neighborhood?
900mW handset. With the *indoor* antenna on the base unit, I can
get about half a mile of coverage in this "low spot". I am hoping
roof mounting the antenna (hence the length of coax) will let me get
beyond the subdivision -- a mile would be nice.
I'll build the handset into the car and let it connect to The House
for those cases when I leave the house (or am approaching the house)
and need to "tell it" something (or, have it tell ME something: "You
left the washing machine on; should I turn it off or will you be right
back?"
It's the "narrow & long" pipe to the car contrasted to the short and fat
one that is used to deliver video, etc. when "near" the house.
[I don't want to have to develop any radios so will just repurpose
COTS devices within the constraints under which they are licensed]
Methinks I'll stop at this point. I have a reputation and license to protect. Posting detailed instructions on how to circumvent FCC rules
might attract unwanted attention. Good luck with whatever you're
plotting.
"FCC Enforcement Actions"
<https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders>
"RG213 vs LMR400"
<https://www.awcwire.com/allied-university/this-vs-that/rg213-vs-lmr400>
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
On 20/07/2026 16:54, john larkin wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
Can be messy, the 'jacks' is quite commonly used in Ireland for what we
call a 'khazi'.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:01:16 +0100, Simon Simple
<nothanks@nottoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 16:54, john larkin wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
Can be messy, the 'jacks' is quite commonly used in Ireland for what we
call a 'khazi'.
Do you have indoor plumbing yet?
On 28/07/2026 1:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
It certainly wasn't "all wrong", just irrelevant to the argument. John >Larkin has a habit of trying to swing in heavy weight sources where they >aren't actually relevant. It's not necessarily malicious - he just
doesn't know what he's doing.
On 27/07/2026 18:43, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:01:16 +0100, Simon Simple
<nothanks@nottoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 16:54, john larkin wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
Can be messy, the 'jacks' is quite commonly used in Ireland for what we
call a 'khazi'.
Do you have indoor plumbing yet?
Yes, we do now. Not till we moved when I was 10 though. In our case, it
was part of the terrace house at the back but you had to go out of the >kitchen door, walk maybe three yards then in the toilet door.
Tracing-paper style bogroll too. Izal Medicated.
In some of the houses you still had to walk to the end of the (short) >garden.
Nonetheless, think what a massive public health benefit that was.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:49:06 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 28/07/2026 1:31 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:30:01 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=run
Now since I referenced the OED, it must be all wrong.
It certainly wasn't "all wrong", just irrelevant to the argument. John
Larkin has a habit of trying to swing in heavy weight sources where they
aren't actually relevant. It's not necessarily malicious - he just
doesn't know what he's doing.
OK, give us the single Sloman-approved definition of "run."
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 09:57:50 +0100, Simon Simple
<nothanks@nottoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/07/2026 18:43, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:01:16 +0100, Simon Simple
<nothanks@nottoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/07/2026 16:54, john larkin wrote:
I got a email from a microwave site about jacks. As the mate for
plugs?
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/45986-mini-jacks
English is such a messy language.
Can be messy, the 'jacks' is quite commonly used in Ireland for what we >>>> call a 'khazi'.
Do you have indoor plumbing yet?
Yes, we do now. Not till we moved when I was 10 though. In our case, it
was part of the terrace house at the back but you had to go out of the
kitchen door, walk maybe three yards then in the toilet door.
Tracing-paper style bogroll too. Izal Medicated.
In some of the houses you still had to walk to the end of the (short)
garden.
Nonetheless, think what a massive public health benefit that was.
I had friends and relatives with septic tanks in their back yards. And
some grew veggies to eat. No wonder "stomach viruses" were so common
back then.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:42:22 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,187 |