Dr. Slick wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...

This is typical of you, Roy, for you to back out of a discussion
when you don't want to admit that maybe someone else has a logical
point. I've agreed with you on many things (antennas as transducers
and such), but like many intelligent but close-minded people, you
cannot accept someone elses points.

I guess you think other people can't teach you anything, eh?

NO ONE knows it all, even about a specific topic as impedance
matching.


Slick

Let me explain why I leave these discussions.

I certainly don't know everything, and am constantly learning. But not
from threads like this one. I can change the SWR on a transmission line
by renormalizing my Smith chart? Is that a "logical point" I'm running
away from?

The reason I post in the first place isn't to try and convince the party
I'm directing my posting to. Nor is it an ego trip. What I hope to
accomplish is to provide a counterpoint to what I see as incorrect
information. This group is read by a very large number of "lurkers" who
seldom or never post. I know this for a fact, because many of them
introduce themselves to me at Dayton and other places I appear publicly.
When someone posts misinformation on this group, I try to present what I
consider to be correct.

There are people, some of whom post here, who won't be convinced
regardless of the evidence. It's as much a total waste of time to argue
with those people as it is to try and convince someone his religion is
wrong. When I encounter a person like that, I'll post my point of view,
present what evidence I can, then withdraw. I have much better things to
do than continue flogging a dead horse. I feel that the lurkers, who are
really the people I'm addressing, should be able to make up their minds
on the basis of what's been presented.

There's more than ample evidence to back up what I've said that's easily
available to anyone with a real interest in learning. Anyone who really
cares and is willing to invest even a modicum of effort can search out
the information and reach a conclusion. You've chosen not to go to that
effort(*), but rather interpret what I say in a way that suits your
preconception. Sorry, I just won't waste more of my time trying to talk
you out of it. If lurkers are convinced by your arguments and find them
more compelling than the ones I've made, then so be it. I've done what I
can. To continue posting over and over again the same thing isn't my
choice of a way to use my time.

There are people who feel that the person who posts the last message
"wins", and so anyone who withdraws has "lost". You can see the result
of this philosophy in the threads that have run to literally hundreds of
postings without ever resolving the issue. It's simply not a game I play.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(*) For example, have you ever looked up the equations for calculation
of SWR? Noticed that there's no term for the source impedance? And no
term for your Smith chart normalization factor?