On Dec 8, 10:15*pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:47*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 8, 8:18*pm, wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:21*pm, Sean Con wrote:

Art, can you please contact me to my email address directly, because i
feel people dont like us discussing something.

Actually, quite the opposite. I think he's a hoot, and look
forward to his posts. It's better than the comedy channel.
Feel free to carry on.

Sean, the poster is qualified to speak into a microphone as he has a
ham licence. However he freely admits to not graduating from high
school, so please judge his comments on his background. He is not the
only one in *this group that has ham licence and feels qualified
in physics to a University level.

I'm sure it must chap your ass to no end, that someone
who was expelled from high school knows more about
antennas than you do.
But this type of retort is about all you can expect from
an individual who's qualifications and training in antenna
theory or even physics in general are no greater than mine.

For one thing, they don't teach antenna theory in high school.
So it's obvious that anyone that does know any amount of
antenna theory did not learn it in high school, unless they
learned it on their own. I was building antennas when I was in
Junior High. So I was already learning antenna theory before
I even got to High School. *How about you?

You do not know physics on a university level, so I fail to
see how your complaint carries any weight at all.
But the real irony is that you whine about my education,
but yet you can't even spell license. *:/
It would be pathetic if it were not so damn hilarious.

I talk about real antennas. Not conjured mumbo jumbo
pseudo science theories.
You are the only person I know that tries to explain
the operation of a device that doesn't even exist.
And yes, I find it hilarious. Deal with it.

Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target. Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer. I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others. I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

On Dec 8, 10:36*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it *so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target.

Being as I was expelled, I really didn't have much say so
in the matter. Easy target? Don't make me laugh..
How many people do you see claiming what I write
is mumbo jumbo pseudo science horse caca?

How many for you?

I rest my case.. :/

Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer.

More than once I've shot down a few of your silly
theories with a single shot. I didn't even have to reload.
Of course, you either fail to comprehend, or you totally
ignore. I consider that a personal problem which is
out of my control. You can lead a jackass to water,
but damned if you can make one drink it..

I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.

My CB days? Art, you are a braying jackass.
I built my first 40 meter transmitter from junk parts when
I was in the 8th grade. I was a SWL well before then.

But even I were into CB's, what difference would that make?
Absolutely none. Radios operated on 27 mhz seem
to follow all the same rules as ones operated on 28 mhz
last time I looked.

Are you claiming special properties for CB radios?

Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others.

What experiments would those be?
I've done hundreds of them..

I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

My first post in this thread detailed a simple way
for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science
theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it.
But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo!
He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and
barking at the levitating neutrinos.

And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. :/

On Dec 8, 11:07*pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:36*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Well you do admit to no high school graduation
and appear to be proud of it *so it is a bit silly for you to throw
stones being such an easy target.

Being as I was expelled, I really didn't have much say so
in the matter. *Easy target? Don't make me laugh..
How many people do you see claiming what I write
is mumbo jumbo pseudo science horse caca?

How many for you?

I rest my case.. *:/

Now if you were willing to learn and
debate we all could judge what you have to offer.

More than once I've shot down a few of your silly
theories with a single shot. I didn't even have to reload.
Of course, you either fail to comprehend, or you totally
ignore. I consider that a personal problem which is
out of my control. You can lead a jackass to water,
but damned if you can make one drink it..

I do agree that you
had a lot of experience with different antennas during your CB
days.

My CB days? *Art, you are a braying jackass.
I built my first 40 meter transmitter from junk parts when
I was in the 8th grade. I was a SWL well before then.

But even I were into CB's, what difference would that make?
Absolutely none. Radios operated on 27 mhz seem
to follow all the same rules as ones operated on 28 mhz
last time I looked.

Are you claiming special properties for CB radios?

Your interpretation of your experiments
however may vary from others.

What experiments would those be?
I've done hundreds of them..

I f you do have some knoweledge that is
pertinent to my comments or overthrow them your standing within the
group may well rise but you appear to have nothing to share other than
spam.

My first post in this thread detailed a simple way
for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science
theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it.
But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo!
He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and
barking at the levitating neutrinos.

And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. *:/

So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread? What is
it that you wanted to offer to this thread? Do you have a problem with
the levitation of neutrinos that you just can't let go?Just pull out a
point stated in this thread and supply a reasoned technical approach
as to why it couldn't possibly be so. Perhaps you can start with the
Gaussian contribution with respect to particles instead of waves which
got you started way back when.
Your choice and chance to share your technical expertise with respect
to radiation and where you have a quarrel with what I present or
propose. So Sean as you can see there is considerable opposition to
talk in technical terms about radiation where SWR discussions
is considered to be the cusp of ham radio.

On Dec 8, 11:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread?

I reinserted myself back into this thread to let Sean know
that I don't mind the banter between you and him.
I reinserted myself back into this thread to let Sean know
that I find you fairly hilarious, and better than the Comedy
Channel.
I reinserted myself back into this thread because I know it
chaps your ass that anyone would dare question you and
your blatant pseudo science bafflegab.
I reinserted myself back into this thread because.. well..
I can. I'm paying for high speed cable internet, and dagnabit,
I'm going to get my moneys worth.

Rest of inane gibberish deleted.. Sorry.. I don't debate
pseudo science theories.
We'll leave that to your various sock puppets..

On 12/8/2010 11:38 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:07 pm, wrote:
snip
My first post in this thread detailed a simple way
for you to prove or disprove all of your pseudo science
theories. It was so simple, even a caveman could do it.
But not that crap for brains Art Unwin... Noooooooooo!
He's still lost in the fog, clutching at straws, and
barking at the levitating neutrinos.

And trying to figure out how to spell knowledge. :/

So what is the reason you inserted yourself into this thread? What is
it that you wanted to offer to this thread? Do you have a problem with
the levitation of neutrinos that you just can't let go?Just pull out a
point stated in this thread and supply a reasoned technical approach
as to why it couldn't possibly be so. Perhaps you can start with the
Gaussian contribution with respect to particles instead of waves which
got you started way back when.
Your choice and chance to share your technical expertise with respect
to radiation and where you have a quarrel with what I present or
propose. So Sean as you can see there is considerable opposition to
talk in technical terms about radiation where SWR discussions
is considered to be the cusp of ham radio.

One of the things that highlights your intellect is how you never deal
with the responses from the people, all you do is change the subject.

tom
K0TAR