John Smith wrote:
I am slow to fence with you, ...

On guard, varlet! :-)

your logic is impressive; however, perhaps
this "safe guard" has failed? It is hard for me to picture static which
is able to resist (pun intended) a path to ground ...

If the SG-230 weren't there you would be right. But
the SG-230 already has two built-in paths to ground
from the main RF line. One is about 40K ohms resistive
and the other is 20 turns on a transformer, probably
a toroid. Your high-resistance path would probably
have negligible effect in this particular situation.

Tom, W8JI, explained it as not just a static charge
problem but as an RF problem. If the impedance is
low enough to discharge RF static, then it is also
low enough to discharge desirable RF signals. What
a parallel impedance does is prevent arcing due to
static DC buildup but it does little to prevent RF
noise due to precipitation static which is many small
discharges but only one small one at a time. (Someone
reported being able to count the charged snowflakes.)

In the absence of a parallel impedance as exists in
the SG-230, a parallel impedance can certainly eliminate
DC arcing along with its associated corona so it's not a
bad idea. But precipitation static is a number of small
hits each generating a small amount of RF energy. The
only way I know of to reduce the amount of that RF energy
reaching the receiver is to partially short it out with
a loop antenna or insulate the antenna from the physical
hits. And in fact, those are the most popular ways of
reducing precipitation static on airplane antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com