RadioBanter - View Single Post

Registered User · December 16th 10, 01:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:49:39 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

That would be babble about why making blanket statements without
adequate research is not an effective decision. That is what you did
isn't it? Does everything that questions your highly self-valued input
become babble?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:54:40 -0000, wrote:

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

Speaking of babble, which parts of that statement have been shown to
be true? The balance can truly be considered babble.

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And let us not overlook how the "a unique and unambigous definition"
became "the term is in common use". Adding conditionals to what was a
statement of absolute certainty does not make the original assertion
any less flawed. That's just woulda, coulda, shoulda revisionism, an
attempt to change the question to make it better fit the known answer.
What makes that path better than the simple admission of having made a
mistake?

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

Yep you made no reference to any standards except for the ones you
made up. Now you're making excuses for failing to refer to any other
standards before making assertions which turned out to be wrong..
Alibi all you wish but the flaws in your assertion of "a unique and
unambigous definition" which "can be found in any textbook on
electromagnetics" have been exposed.

snip remaining long winded babble

What you call long-winded babble was

- quote -

You took what may be a perfectly valid general rule, tried to convert
it to an absolute certainty, and failed. That's so what.

- end quote -

How could those two sentences be made to contain less babble and be
made more concise?

Denigrate the messenger all you wish but that will not change the fact
your blanket statement was nothing more than an uneducated, unfounded
opinion. Please note I refer to the opinion as being uneducated and
unfounded not the individual. Whatever your education, skills and
experience are, the aggregate is unrelated to the fact you come across
in the context of a small person who is rather full of himself. Let me
just pat you on the head and say 'you win, you're right because you
say so'.