"Chris W" wrote in message
news:R7Vrf.44546$ih5.34081@dukeread11...
John Popelish wrote:

Chris W wrote:
(snip)

BTW, who is the inept clueless moron that decided UHF Female should be
called SO-239 and UHF Male should be called PL-259? And why do people
still call them that? While I'm ranting, they should rename it to VHF
or maybe even HF, it certainly shouldn't be called a UHF connector.

Perhaps not exclusively UHF- but what do you perceive the problem of
SO-239/PL-259 at UHF- say 70cM? If it is loss, how much is the loss of a
mated pair?

Dale W4OP