Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91   Report Post  
Old October 21st 04, 04:10 PM
Wes Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:44:12 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

[snip]
|
|Perhaps you should argue this with
|Dr. Ken Asmus, VA3KA , a scientist who
|conducted a shoot-out in Canada...

I'm sure that Dr. Asmus is a fine fellow, all-around good guy and he
no longer beats his wife. But the minute I hear, "the RB-36x was 1-2
S units stronger", science has gone out the window and bafflegab has
blown in.

[snip]
|
|It seems inconsistent that you repeatedly
|cry "unsubstantiated" then refuse to
|consider substance. Though I suppose
|if you bothered to check out the contest
|records, it may raise havoc with your
|unsubstantiated opinions, perhaps?... hi

Contest records are not "substance."

Comparative measurements on a calibrated antenna range would be
substance. I will consider them.

SK

N7WS
  #92   Report Post  
Old October 21st 04, 06:35 PM
Chuck
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:44:12 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

[snip]
|
|Perhaps you should argue this with
|Dr. Ken Asmus, VA3KA , a scientist who
|conducted a shoot-out in Canada...

I'm sure that Dr. Asmus is a fine fellow, all-around good guy and he
no longer beats his wife. But the minute I hear, "the RB-36x was 1-2
S units stronger", science has gone out the window and bafflegab has
blown in.


Wes,

You demean a scientist merely to
feed your perverted ego and maintain
your narrow-minded preconceptions?

Where is the intellectual honesty in
that? Where is the science in that?

You demonstrate the only kind of
science you support is that which
confirms your silly preconceptions,
despite reality.

Which would imply, had the
comparison gone the other way,
you'd have accepted that data
unquestioned.

Hypocrisy has no standing in real
science.


[snip]
|
|It seems inconsistent that you repeatedly
|cry "unsubstantiated" then refuse to
|consider substance. Though I suppose
|if you bothered to check out the contest
|records, it may raise havoc with your
|unsubstantiated opinions, perhaps?... hi

Contest records are not "substance."

Comparative measurements on a calibrated antenna range would be
substance. I will consider them.


Since you've established that your
mind is an impenetrable brick, I'd
venture to say you'd reject test
range data outright, if it failed to
meet your silly preconceptions.

Do you still live in Tucson? Just
a 100 miles south of me...

If so, I invite you to consider this:

Let me know the next time you're
on 17m... I'd be happy to blow your
silly 3 el yagi away with my measly
2 elements...

Have a nice...

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

SK

N7WS







  #93   Report Post  
Old May 18th 11, 03:45 AM
Member
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2011
Location: Tampa florida
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:44:12 -0700, "Chuck"

wrote:

[snip]
|
|Perhaps you should argue this with
|Dr. Ken Asmus, VA3KA , a scientist who
|conducted a shoot-out in Canada...

I'm sure that Dr. Asmus is a fine fellow, all-around good guy and he
no longer beats his wife. But the minute I hear, "the RB-36x was 1-2
S units stronger", science has gone out the window and bafflegab has
blown in.


Wes,

You demean a scientist merely to
feed your perverted ego and maintain
your narrow-minded preconceptions?

Where is the intellectual honesty in
that? Where is the science in that?

You demonstrate the only kind of
science you support is that which
confirms your silly preconceptions,
despite reality.

Which would imply, had the
comparison gone the other way,
you'd have accepted that data
unquestioned.

Hypocrisy has no standing in real
science.


[snip]
|
|It seems inconsistent that you repeatedly
|cry "unsubstantiated" then refuse to
|consider substance. Though I suppose
|if you bothered to check out the contest
|records, it may raise havoc with your
|unsubstantiated opinions, perhaps?... hi

Contest records are not "substance."

Comparative measurements on a calibrated antenna range would be
substance. I will consider them.


Since you've established that your
mind is an impenetrable brick, I'd
venture to say you'd reject test
range data outright, if it failed to
meet your silly preconceptions.

Do you still live in Tucson? Just
a 100 miles south of me...

If so, I invite you to consider this:

Let me know the next time you're
on 17m... I'd be happy to blow your
silly 3 el yagi away with my measly
2 elements...

Have a nice...

73 de Chuck, WA7RAI

SK

N7WS
Wow, what an interesting read.
__________________
Ka7niq
http://www.saferoofcleaning.com
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stainless steel antenna wire Larry Benko Antenna 3 August 27th 04 01:03 AM
EZNEC v. 4.0 at Dayton Roy Lewallen Antenna 0 May 7th 04 06:10 PM
Adding lengths to bare wire antenna? Ken Antenna 8 May 3rd 04 03:03 PM
3 antennas modeled with EZNEC Cecil Moore Antenna 56 February 9th 04 09:36 AM
randon wire newbie question lethal Antenna 4 February 7th 04 11:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017