On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:08:25 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Now, can you in fact support your statement
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"
with that actual bit of code (a labeled block)? Or has your
theoretical vacuum merely confirmed another attempted grave robbery?

Interesting you would move to slight this "dead man"

Not interesting at all. Thank you for confirming your topic's demise
from its intellectual poverty. It was a quick death, after all - a
stillbirth considering its antecedent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Not interesting at all. Thank you for confirming your topic's demise
from its intellectual poverty. It was a quick death, after all - a
stillbirth considering its antecedent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh you noticed; for someone to have an intelligent conversation with
you, you would first have to say something intelligent.

I tell you, I can't tell if there is real hope, still, for you, or not
.... I won't tell you which way I am leaning, it might influence the
outcome. ROFLOL

Anyway, you are always good for a laugh.

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:11:24 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Not interesting at all. Thank you for confirming your topic's demise
from its intellectual poverty. It was a quick death, after all - a
stillbirth considering its antecedent.

Oh you noticed

A corpse is a corpse - of course, of course;
and no one would talk to corpse, of course;
unless, of course, that corpse was the famous Mr. Dead!

for someone to have an intelligent conversation with
you, you would first have to say something intelligent.

And you have something intelligent to say? It would have to improve
over your gumming through
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:11:24 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Not interesting at all. Thank you for confirming your topic's demise
from its intellectual poverty. It was a quick death, after all - a
stillbirth considering its antecedent.

Oh you noticed

A corpse is a corpse - of course, of course;
and no one would talk to corpse, of course;
unless, of course, that corpse was the famous Mr. Dead!

for someone to have an intelligent conversation with
you, you would first have to say something intelligent.

And you have something intelligent to say? It would have to improve
over your gumming through
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Voodoo science exists within the NEC code, the cat is out of the bag,
end of story ... of course, you are a "flat-earther", that changes
everything in your imaginary world ... and, due to near-sighted-vision,
will remain there, for you ...

Not only that, you now wish to take your imaginary vision into realms
where you are without grounds to go ... download the code, compile, link
and debug ... or else, get out yer' knitting needles and join the women
in the other room ...

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:16:39 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

And you have something intelligent to say? It would have to improve
over your gumming through
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"

Voodoo science exists within the NEC code

Sorry Brett, gumming repetition does not prove an idea you already
allowed as being a dead and embraceable disgust. You clearly don't
have any idea how to progress beyond incantation of trolling
prosodies.

To your credit, no one expects originality from you. After all, that
is the point of your (self-supposed) anonymity (an ironic joke I
enjoy). You could as easily be Sara luxuriating in the flush of your
TV debate victory (complete with your aw-shucksisms)!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:16:39 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

And you have something intelligent to say? It would have to improve
over your gumming through
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"
Voodoo science exists within the NEC code

Sorry Brett, gumming repetition does not prove an idea you already
allowed as being a dead and embraceable disgust. You clearly don't
have any idea how to progress beyond incantation of trolling
prosodies.

To your credit, no one expects originality from you. After all, that
is the point of your (self-supposed) anonymity (an ironic joke I
enjoy). You could as easily be Sara luxuriating in the flush of your
TV debate victory (complete with your aw-shucksisms)!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Well, let me see here, I mean, I want to give you all due respect, and
all that ...

Have you presented material since the 1960's for us to preview ... no,
no it seems you have not ...

Have you presented any pertinent data which would catch ones interest,
no, no you have not ...

Have you presented any antennas which cannot be found in 1960's or prior
articles, papers or books, no, no you have not ...

Have, you presented ANY areas which have not been gone over 1000 times
.... no, no you have not ....

Have you been a pain in the arse, demanding attention to your
mutterings, claiming importance to your mutterings, well, yes, yes you
have done that ... YOU HAVE DONE THAT, UNFORTUANTLY!

Other than the bedrock of antenna literature, what have you to offer?
What do you have to say that we cannot find in a book by one of your
favorite gurus? What new have you offered, since, like say 1960?

Richard, if you are going to invoke minds such as Cecils', such as
Roys', such as Walters', such as many would were writing articles when I
was an adolescent--could you not reach down and offer just a bit more
.... I mean, if it is within your reach ... ROFLOL

No, no you cannot, however, surprise me ... it has happened before ...
perhaps you have saved the best for last ... or, is all you have to
offer more butt kissing of those who have gone before?

Sad, so very sad, but then, you already know that and have prostituted
all your mental prowess getting here ... imagine-a-tear-in-each-of-my-eyes

May Heaven provide you with better ...

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:13:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
And you have something intelligent to say? It would have to improve
over your gumming through
NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to),
it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science"
Voodoo science exists within the NEC code

Sorry Brett, gumming repetition does not prove an idea you already
allowed as being a dead and embraceable disgust. You clearly don't
have any idea how to progress beyond incantation of trolling
prosodies.

To your credit, no one expects originality from you. After all, that
is the point of your (self-supposed) anonymity (an ironic joke I
enjoy). You could as easily be Sara luxuriating in the flush of your
TV debate victory (complete with your aw-shucksisms)!

Well, let me see here, I mean, I want to give you all due respect, and
all that ...

No you don't. This maudlin appeal is weak tea, save it for Authur who
shares your disability in lack of originality.

I do applaud the parade of the lame and lazy excuses you two manage to
bluff up in the guise of outrage. What a hoot! Insisting others to
prove your claims has to rank up there on the honor roll of welfare
queens. If the Congress had a bailout for ineptitude (and it has been
fairly proven they do), they would have granted you earmarks for your
mutual admiration society diary entries. You guys scribble out those
tear stained pages like they earn tax credits. Weep on! The election
cycle still has 30 days of promises to be made to the technically
indigent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Not interesting at all. Thank you for confirming your topic's demise
from its intellectual poverty. It was a quick death, after all - a
stillbirth considering its antecedent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Anyway, as usual, you missed the point. The "silence" you are pointing
out is the sound of everyone firing up their favorite antenna modeling
software, such as MMANA-GAL, then realizing they are actually going to
have to construct something to get complete data ...

However, I can almost hear your thoughts, don't bother stating them; I
will state them for you, "Now how do you like that JS? I am your worst
nightmare!" -- Just before the room fills with laughter ...

Regards,
JS