Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

Which topic would that be, the fact that anyone who would dare imply
that an antenna built by Jerry Stuckle is anything other than the gold
standard, perfect antenna to which all other antennas should be compared
causes you to fly into a rage?



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 6:30 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

Which topic would that be, the fact that anyone who would dare imply
that an antenna built by Jerry Stuckle is anything other than the gold
standard, perfect antenna to which all other antennas should be compared
causes you to fly into a rage?




Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:


snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.

First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.

Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.

Then it was something about you having a WAS thus proving your antenna
was wonderful.

Then it was something about 80M and 6M being different when I said that
signal reports do not measure antenna gain or pattern.

Which topic do you want?


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 7:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.

First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.

Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.


I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

Then it was something about you having a WAS thus proving your antenna
was wonderful.


Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.

Then it was something about 80M and 6M being different when I said that
signal reports do not measure antenna gain or pattern.


You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.

Which topic do you want?



I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.

Just like the troll you are - keep trying to change the topic, but when
someone calls you on it, you blame them. It's not going to work, though.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:


snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.

First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.

Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.


I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

That's not quite what I said, but in any case ANY dipole mounted at
less than 1/2 wavelength high will NOT perform as well for DX as a
a dipole mounted 1/2 wave length high or higher.

You can see that from the charts I produced or any book on electromagnetic
theory.

Then it was something about you having a WAS thus proving your antenna
was wonderful.

Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.

No, you just babbled nonsense about a WAS somehow magically says
something about antenna gain and pattern.

Then it was something about 80M and 6M being different when I said that
signal reports do not measure antenna gain or pattern.


You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.

You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards go not, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the 6M
statments.

Which topic do you want?

I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.

Oh, I forgot the one where you stupidly said that numbers expressed
in wavelenths were not relevant to all dipoles.


--
Jim Pennino