Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 08, 10:21 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL mike maghakian Shortwave 26 December 8th 06 08:22 AM
REBUTTAL TO COMMENTS ON RX-340 BY DAVE ZANTOW mike maghakian Shortwave 8 November 20th 06 02:26 AM
Richard Pryor Sanjaya Shortwave 40 December 12th 05 09:18 AM
Richard Pryor 6925 USB Brian Hill Shortwave 1 December 11th 05 12:37 AM
Richard S. Garner---Any one know--- AL G. Swap 0 January 21st 04 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017