View Single Post
  #22   Report Post  
Old March 21st 04, 07:47 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 21 Mar 2004 06:13:13 -0800, (jaroslav lipka)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote

Hi Jaro,

I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?



G'day Richard

Why am i not surprised you jumped in.

Nor I you. Thanx for that moment of irony. :-)
As i have stated before i know very little about Antenna's, but i do consider
myself a reasonable judge of people.


Hi Jaro,

That is a presumption not supported by any evidence much less
observable in your correspondence. You respond as a social critic
often, and to take me to task for that same office exposes your having
little talent for it.

As a social critic, you should examine the quality of your education
closer. For instance, English is one of the few, if not only,
languages that distinguishes and capitalizes the first person pronoun
- I. To a social examiner, the persistent usage of the lower case i
would suggest problems of either self perception, or over exposure to
the works of e.e. cummings. However, I am descending into technical
issues and diverging from your agenda of entertainment:

I first came across this group about two years ago and what caught
my attention then was a post you made where you were attempting to
ridicule where Art had sugested putting a feed on an Antenna (i
believe it was a Moxon)and in a later post Ian White confirmed it was
the correct position.


I've noted in that same span of time that, yes, you know very little
about antennas and have contributed nothing technical. We often
encounter correspondents slumming through our group in seek of
entertainment and pressing on for more discussion of personalities to
the abandonment of the theoretical (this post of yours is eminent in
that regard). Your support of Art certainly serves to relieve your
boredom - one of those decadent Old World problems of ennui?

You ask for facts and figures,why should he supply them when
judging from your previous posts you have already decided whatever he
claims he is wrong.


Why indeed, when it interferes with this decided preference for the
buffoonery of a soap opera. Facts and figures too quickly snuff the
ambiguity of martyrdom.

Jaro, please don't let this dissuade you from more entries here, their
quality heightens the contrast to real participation. This returns me
to the original observation you have not responded to:
I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?

Let's just say your prejudice has the same weight as Art's proofs you
fail to comprehend - could we say Ætherial?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC