I made no false statements.

You did, indeed, provide the "data", but you never answered when I
asked you for contact information for the range that performed the
tests, or a website not owned or run by your "company" which can
verify the figures you gave.

I can type out db gains off the cuff, too..

The fact is you didn't respond to that question.

You also didn't respond to the question about who had so much
information on me. You got the callsign right. You have internet
access. You know where to go to look up a HAM's email address, if they
have one. You apparently refuse to understand why someone wouldn't put
their real email address on usenet. And finally, you apparently refuse
to take the steps necessary to accurately and completely answer
questions posed to you, without evasion of any sort.

So where's the lie?

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of
his answers.

-SSB


Chris,

It is important that you express care when making statements that are false.

It's quite OK with me if you take a strong tone or attitude. It's not in your
best interest, however, to posit things in a false light for the sake of taking
things over the top against me as an individual.

You seem to have concerns about fractal antennas, which I have been forthcoming
about and dead honest.

I have no continued interest in 'defending' fractal antennas in this forum, for
the simple reason that the technology and the science are proven, accepted, and
well beyond this point.

You asked me about a specific design, and I provided you the info.

I also provided you info on how it was tested, but you chose not to accept that
info.

That's all there is, Chris.

Now, be the nice guy you are and don't seek to be a defamer or propagandist.

As for BPL, it would be wonderful if all the (few) uppity hams upset with BPL
could target an individual to accomplish their goal. The reality is that the
battle is lost, for the simple reason that there is no battle, and attacking me
only, apparently makes ham radio look bad in general; IMO.

I am not the only one who feels, or notices, how backward we are as a group of
communicators from a applied use of technology viewpoint. We need to understand
that HF communications needs to be advanced by hams AS hams, and not revered
in the same mold from 1967.

BPL will now be decided in the marketplace, not the histrionic hyperbole of a
few hams. Accept it.

I hope you will agree with me that this was always the case, but a few
emboldened amateurs failed to grasp that reality.

Have a pleasant day.

73,
Chip N1IR