RadioBanter - View Single Post

Jerry Stuckle · November 23rd 14, 09:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/23/2014 4:10 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 1:11 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 9:18 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.

First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.

Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.

I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

That's not quite what I said, but in any case ANY dipole mounted at
less than 1/2 wavelength high will NOT perform as well for DX as a
a dipole mounted 1/2 wave length high or higher.

It is EXACTLY what you said - except for the parentheses, which I added.

The whole point of which is that you used a less than optimal antenna
for DX and then became outraged that someone dared to imply your
antenna was less than perfect.

That is NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Do I need to paste your exact words a *third
time*? Is your memory that short?

You are correct, it wasn't those exact words, but it was exactly that
rephrased.

Yes, and in rephrasing it, you completely changed the meaning.

No, I did not change the meanging.

The bottom line is, and always has been, you went into a multipost rage
because it was implied something you did was less than perfect.

And you are still raging about it.

Yes, you changed the meaning. And let's see your proof that I went in
to a rage, troll. But you can't - you're projecting your own feelings.
Just like a troll.

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

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