A dipole over ground
 

On 22/11/2014 4:24 AM, John S wrote:

As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.

And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no
reply.

The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky
proving he is the troll)
google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.

Those are two traits of a real troll.

snip


I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

It's just what a troll does.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:


"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ...


However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
================================================== =============
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.

I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.

"Sal"



Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.


Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't
been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a
ham - since it was Arpanet.


I doubt that. Can you prove it?


Why should I?


Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each
other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help
to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap.

Like you.


Yes, you are.

But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you
stick around, you'll see their true colors.

Like you.


Yes, you are.

As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether I care or not. I just
want others to know who the trolls are.

And there are a couple here who are widely known in multiple newsgroups.

And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no
reply.


Ah, so you can get the last word in? Just like a troll wants?

Of course, I KNOW you'll just HAVE to respond!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 3:54 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 22/11/2014 4:24 AM, John S wrote:

As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.

And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no
reply.

The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky
proving he is the troll)
google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation

Why don't you go back to alt.politics, aus.tv.pay, aus.legal or any of
the many other newsgroups where you are a well-known troll? Maybe you
can't fool people there any more?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 1:31 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:30 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:38 AM, the well-known troll atec77 wrote:
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous


bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .

we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for
you to
use them in proportion .



You should speak for yourself -
I have did and will continue to do so old man
and you're third grade name calling,
something that only trolls do.

now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim


You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you?


No wonder you want to remain anonymous.


common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man


ROFLMAO!

If I were as stoopid as you,

you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you
really are


Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just
how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven.


I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are
but most certainly you cant resist my charms



Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say -
other than maybe other trolls.

No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I
wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either.

Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to
hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address.


Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even
spell stupid.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463

Nope, in your case it is STOOPID.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

A dipole over ground
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.

Those are two traits of a real troll.

snip


I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.



--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

On Friday, November 21, 2014 3:17:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:


"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ...


However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
================================================== =============
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.

I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.

"Sal"



Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.


Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

A dipole over ground
 

On Friday, November 21, 2014 5:31:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

Also, if one changes their email address, that would be a reason
they would not show up. I show myself going back to 2000, but I've
actually been here longer than that. It seems my mid-late 1990's posts
runnoft for some reason.

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 5:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.

Those are two traits of a real troll.

snip


I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.




It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/21/2014 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, November 21, 2014 3:17:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:


"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ...


However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
================================================== =============
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.

I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.

"Sal"



Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.


Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.




Only the late 1990's? ROFLAMO! And Google Groups shows the truth. It
goes back to at least the middle 90's - they did, after all, buy
deja-news. And no, they have not "culled a lot of older posts". If you
think so, please prove it.

As a matter of fact, I was in this group while it was still arpanet - it
existed back in the 70's. So much for your "theories".

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================