On 11/21/2014 6:40 PM, wrote:
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.


Gee, excuses, excuses. Or maybe you aren't what you claim. Email
addresses don't affect user names. Now if you faked your user name,
that's another story.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

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


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

If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/21/2014 8:13 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.


This right here shows you how wrong you are.

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


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

If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html



LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

Heck - I shouldn't have even been able to work another Iowa station 100
mi. away!

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:13 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.


This right here shows you how wrong you are.

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


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

If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html



LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

A REAL report would be what you get from pskreporter which has numbers
coming from a computer based measurement in dB, not just some guy saying
"59".

So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

I have never said anything is impossible; you are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/21/2014 8:54 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:13 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.


This right here shows you how wrong you are.

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


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

If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html



LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

A REAL report would be what you get from pskreporter which has numbers
coming from a computer based measurement in dB, not just some guy saying
"59".

So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

I have never said anything is impossible; you are delusional.



So you say that reports of a strong signal all over the state prove your
theory - but reports from all over the world are worthless because they
are not "propagation reports". IOW, reports which support your
fantasies are fine, but those which do no support your theories don't
count. Talk about selective bias!

And no - you didn't say it was impossible. But I still challenge you to
show how I could do that if my antenna "sucked". After all - it was
just an inverted VEE, apex at 50', ends basically at ground level.
According to you, I shouldn't have been able to work farther than Omaha.
Yet I worked both coasts virtually every night in the winter time.

So tell me, how could such an antenna that "sucks" according to your own
words, work?

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

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

On 17/11/2014 19:34, John S wrote:
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical
knowledge up to child molestation.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

Brian Gregory wrote:
On 17/11/2014 19:34, John S wrote:
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

On 2/12/2014 4:52 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including
a moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is
digging an even deeper rut

atec77 wrote:
On 2/12/2014 4:52 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including a
moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is digging an even deeper rut

Perhaps, but the general ambience of a moderated group should be
significantly more pleasant than the open sewer that uk.radio.amateur has
been for a decade and that several groups in rra.* are threatening to
become.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

On 2/12/2014 6:08 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
atec77 wrote:
On 2/12/2014 4:52 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including a
moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is digging an even deeper rut

Perhaps, but the general ambience of a moderated group should be
significantly more pleasant than the open sewer that uk.radio.amateur has
been for a decade and that several groups in rra.* are threatening to
become.

you are correct of course , kinda ""be careful what you wish for""