Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common sense he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I felt I had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself from from his unwarrented comments. Walt, W2DU Walter, when I placed my page unwinantennas.com/ on this antenna discussion group you and Richard had the gall to attack me and my work just for the fun of destruction. My page which is on antennas by the way shows the path why antennas can be any shape ,size or configuration including variable elevation as long as it is in equilibrium. You and Richard took on the quest to crush the idea before it was discussed fully while Richard denied that the Gaussin progression could not be equal to Maxwells law., A position he reversed himself on a few months later without apology after discussion was succesfully dissed. You as a expert book author chose gthe path of insults without one iota of professional comment. Shame on both of you. This group is for the discussion of antennas and when I brought forward the equilibrium matter forward I beat you to the punch by providing the mathematical aproach first. Neither of you discussed seriously what I proferred so neither of you could find fault with it and Richard was particarly vicious with his attacks and not once finding an error. You both destroyed the idea of antenna discussion and debate on this newsgroup because you both over estimate your own abilities while taking the pagth of destruction. I worked hard at what I did and then shared it with my fellow amateurs so all could enjoy. You Walt and Richard deserve each other, as they say,what you sow so may you reap!. Some day hams will be allowed to discuss or debate antenna matters without fear of attack from you and your followers who provide nothing of technical content to the discussion searching only for a "me too" aproach. Maybe now that both of you have shown your true colours or GALL as you call it other true hams will come back and discuss antennas without being pushed aside. Wiered how you both take offense of a tactic that you have practiced for years upon others with some relish and now complain of the tone of debate or critism that do not match your own position of chief adjudicater on the subject of radiation. Art Unwin Unwinantennas.com/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL | Shortwave | |||
REBUTTAL TO COMMENTS ON RX-340 BY DAVE ZANTOW | Shortwave | |||
Richard Pryor | Shortwave | |||
Richard Pryor 6925 USB | Shortwave | |||
Richard S. Garner---Any one know--- | Swap |