[time-nuts] Need Time Help

[William H. Fite]

Very true, Tom! I stand corrected.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Tom Van Baak <tvb at leapsecond.com> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> Some of the key topics of this hobby are -- what did it cost, absolute
> time error, relative frequency instability, and phase noise. In these cases
> the goal of time nuts is always "mine is smaller than yours".
>
> /tvb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William H. Fite" <omniryx at gmail.com>
> To: "Nick Sayer" <nsayer at kfu.com>; "Discussion of precise time and
> frequency measurement" <time-nuts at febo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help
>
>
> Indeed, Nick. And more than a little (usually) courteous one upmanship
> couched in terms of being helpful by correcting all previous posters. This
> gentlemanly "mine is bigger than yours" phenomenon is part of what makes
> this group fun to read.
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Nick Sayer via time-nuts <
> time-nuts at febo.com
> > wrote:
>
> > To be fair, this is at least partly because asking a relatively simple
> > question here routinely turns into a dissertation defense.
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 2016, at 3:45 AM, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > That’s very typical in a lot of forums. The OP tosses up a question and
> > then pretty much vanishes.
> > > My observation is that roughly 80% of the “I have a question” threads
> > work that way.
> > > I’ve never been able to figure out if it is an expectation that all
> > answers will arrive in an hour or two
> > > or if the OP is simply reading along and sees no reason to providing
> > more information to the group.
> > > Either way, I’m pretty sure that the focus of the answers is not all
> > that great a week after the last input.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>



-- 
Intelligence has never been proof against stupidity.