I don,t think that is all encompasing. During the last couple of days I
have written two new postings regarding the academic side of antennas
which is what I thought members wanted but that is not the case, read
a few answers that I got which are very few. On the other side of the
coin there are more members responding to non the antenna issues with
slander
so as with any group the majority rules. Throwing mud is always more
enjoyable in the absence of applicable logic, but then it is safer to
say what Roy resorts to
"I don't understand "
The days that ham radio pursued the sciences are long gone and this
antenna newsgroup
is a perfect example of that We have to recognise that simple fact and
find a way to turn it around to our own advantage, or alternatively get
a gun and play fire with fire.
As far as being a short time poster that is not true, Over the years I
have seen more slanderous postings from the suedo experts of which
there is still a few around
At one time such comments were thick and heavy even racial with
respect to jews so many knowledgable hams left and were replaced by
posters who enjoyed that sort of exchange.

Go to the archives and pick out a name that applies to a self percieved
antenna expert bearing in mind that I am a learner and you will quickly
come across the worst that you will ever see. As I said earlier some of
those early combantants are still having a hayday.and more
silly logic is coming in from all sides to join them. Again count where
the majority postings have headed in the last few days to gauge what
antenna types really want.
I must exclude Walt from all others since no matter what politeness
rules in all of his postings as well as applicable logic. Sometimes I
have been driven to a lessor ind of response based on slander given.
Cheers
Art





Brian Kelly wrote:
art wrote:
Very interesting , why can't you post like this on other threads?

What?? You're new around here aren't you? Run a search in this group on
"w3rv"for the years 1995 thru 2005 inclusive then kindly reconsider
your comment.

Any of my online food-fight posts which have shown up in this group
recently were cross-posted from Rec.Radio.Amateur.Policy without my
intent or knowledge. RRAP was founded to specifically debate the
contentious code test issue and I've posted to it many times over the
years often in a bit of a combative mode. Which is normal, expected
practice in that particular group. Food-fights are *not* normal,
expected practice in this group and as your search results will
illustrate I *don't* indulge in them in this group.

The problem all the ham radio USENET groups is suffering involves the
behavior of a few members of the "ham community" who have no respect at
all for propriety and civilized behavior and they're destroying
valuable resourses like this group. They obviously come from levels of
society which the average ham would not like to have living anywhere
near their neighborhoods. For lack of a better way to put it . . It's
the same bunch which are turning the HF phone bands into
embarrassments.

It's a shame but that's the way it is these days. The only ways out
seem to be moderated reflectors and discussion groups. Sad.

Brian w3rv