RadioBanter - View Single Post

Jerry Stuckle · November 21st 14, 02:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/20/2014 10:49 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/20/2014 2:08 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Right...

troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.

I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.

You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of
any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier.

Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're
an expert on them! ROFLMAO!

I know enough to understand what the elevation angles in this data mean
and that a diple is a dipole:

You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

snip

And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert".

Special note:

Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.

In your case they aren't accurate to -2 decimal places.

Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.

Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.

Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. But you have to
prove your stoopidity by opening your mouth anyway.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================