On 11/23/2014 12:59 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You don't get QSL's from all 50 states on 80 meters with an antenna that
"sucks". But you can't accept that fact because it violates your fantasies.

QSL cards say nothing about an antenna's performance, but you can't
accept the fact because you are in a rage that someone implied that
something you used was less than perfect.




You can't accept the fact that an antenna that "sucks" wouldn't be able
to get QSL cards from all 50 states on 80 meters.

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.




Where did I say something could not have worked better? Or are you
trying to put words in my mouth, again? That's what trolls do, after all.

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.




Your proof?

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.




Your proof?

Your post after post after post.

--
Jim Pennino

On 11/23/2014 5:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.




Your proof?

Your post after post after post.


Your proof? You don't have any, troll.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.


Your proof?

Your post after post after post.

Your proof? You don't have any, troll.

One need only look at the long list of posts.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, or observed was less than perfect, at which point you
went off into one of your usual rages.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just a thin skinned, egomaniacal playground bully with delusions
of perfection.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/23/2014 6:44 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.


Your proof?

Your post after post after post.

Your proof? You don't have any, troll.

One need only look at the long list of posts.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, or observed was less than perfect, at which point you
went off into one of your usual rages.


Your proof, troll? You don't have any.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just a thin skinned, egomaniacal playground bully with delusions
of perfection.



I see you're projecting again. How like the troll you are.

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

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

On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!

--

Percy Picacity

On 11/23/2014 4:22 PM, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!


No, he has never admitted that. He has tried to explain it away - but
never said his assessment was inaccurate. In fact, he has repeatedly
argued the opposite.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:22 PM, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!


No, he has never admitted that. He has tried to explain it away - but
never said his assessment was inaccurate. In fact, he has repeatedly
argued the opposite.

He's talking about you.


--
Jim Pennino