On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

|
|J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message
...
| Let me see if I understand.
| A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the
| most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why.
|
| Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since
| anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge.
|
| Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place
| work.
|
|Mac,
|
|Clearly, you do not understand!
|
|Public disparagement of a customer with
|a valid issue is not appropriate under any
|circumstances.

Are you the "wronged" customer?

|
|And that's the issue I am raising here, as
|well as opposing the cavalier attitude that
|engenders such disparagement.
|
|With all due respect, you erroneously
|concluded I am a software vender, when
|in fact, I am here simply as an interested
|Ham who has a right to form an opinion -
|good or bad.


And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made
unsubstantiated claims about your product. When modeling has pointed
out those shortcomings, you claim that some new law of physics makes
it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling
programs should be disparaged.

You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's
product or integrity. Shame on you.

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

|
|J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message
...
| Let me see if I understand.
| A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the
| most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why.
|
| Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since
| anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge.
|
| Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place
| work.
|
|Mac,
|
|Clearly, you do not understand!
|
|Public disparagement of a customer with
|a valid issue is not appropriate under any
|circumstances.

Are you the "wronged" customer?

Are you Roy's official toady?


|
|And that's the issue I am raising here, as
|well as opposing the cavalier attitude that
|engenders such disparagement.
|
|With all due respect, you erroneously
|concluded I am a software vender, when
|in fact, I am here simply as an interested
|Ham who has a right to form an opinion -
|good or bad.


And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made
unsubstantiated claims about your product.

Wes,

Apparently, when you don't like a message
you attempt to malign the messenger...
where is the intellectual honesty in that?

In any case, I am not in business as of late,
as my wife is dying of cancer and needs all
my attention. And since I am not in business,
I can now express my views here without
being accused of commercialism.

Regarding my claims; you cannot provide
one substantiated instance where my
antennas did not perform as stated. Where
are the complaints? Where are the
dissatisfied users. One would think after TEN
years there would have been some indication
of a fraud if one did exist.

Or perhaps you simply imagine that all those
good folks who find my antenna design a
superior one, are merely deluded idiots, as
Brian Beasley once accused...

When modeling has pointed out those shortcomings,
you claim that some new law of physics makes
it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling
programs should be disparaged.

Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and
I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC
based programs cannot model my design
simply from their inability to simulate a
virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line.
Furthermore, I hold the opinion that there are
no assumptions in those programs that would
recognize the induced energy that would be
present at the reverse input of such a line.

Do you have definitive proof to the contrary?

Let me suggest, that until you have something
of substance to offer in this regard, you should
refrain from making false accusations.


You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's
product or integrity. Shame on you.


lol... my only 'agenda' here is to point out
Roy's distain towards his customers who
cannot work through his inconsistencies...

Though, apparently, you have an agenda of
sorts, otherwise you wouldn't be posting
this garbage! Shame in you!

Chuck, WA7RAI

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck"
writes:
[snip]
|
|Apparently, when you don't like a message
|you attempt to malign the messenger...


and then goes on to malign me.

Chuck wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote in message
...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:03:21 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

|
|J. Mc Laughlin wrote in message
...
| Let me see if I understand.
| A competitor of EZNEC feels a need to draw a red fish in front of one of the
| most successful and effective programs in existence. One wonders why.
|
| Disparagement from a competitor is not appropriate. Especially since
| anyone may and can evaluate the suitability of EZNEC without charge.
|
| Tout the advantages of your work on your site and let the market place
| work.
|
|Mac,
|
|Clearly, you do not understand!
|
|Public disparagement of a customer with
|a valid issue is not appropriate under any
|circumstances.

Are you the "wronged" customer?


Are you Roy's official toady?


|
|And that's the issue I am raising here, as
|well as opposing the cavalier attitude that
|engenders such disparagement.
|
|With all due respect, you erroneously
|concluded I am a software vender, when
|in fact, I am here simply as an interested
|Ham who has a right to form an opinion -
|good or bad.


And a disingenuous one at that. You are an antenna vendor who has made
unsubstantiated claims about your product.


Wes,

Apparently, when you don't like a message
you attempt to malign the messenger...
where is the intellectual honesty in that?

In any case, I am not in business as of late,
as my wife is dying of cancer and needs all
my attention. And since I am not in business,
I can now express my views here without
being accused of commercialism.


That would be a lot easier to believe if you
stopped advertising on your web site.





Regarding my claims; you cannot provide
one substantiated instance where my
antennas did not perform as stated. Where
are the complaints? Where are the
dissatisfied users. One would think after TEN
years there would have been some indication
of a fraud if one did exist.

I just visited your web site. Lots of assertions,
little in the way of proof.


Or perhaps you simply imagine that all those
good folks who find my antenna design a
superior one, are merely deluded idiots, as
Brian Beasley once accused...


When modeling has pointed out those shortcomings,
you claim that some new law of physics makes
it impossible to model your product and people selling those modeling
programs should be disparaged.


Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and
I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC
based programs cannot model my design
simply from their inability to simulate a
virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line.

A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
That's a good one. Very inventive.


Furthermore, I hold the opinion that there are
no assumptions in those programs that would
recognize the induced energy that would be
present at the reverse input of such a line.

Do you have definitive proof to the contrary?

Let me suggest, that until you have something
of substance to offer in this regard, you should
refrain from making false accusations.


You have an agenda that overrides any legitimate criticism of Roy's
product or integrity. Shame on you.



lol... my only 'agenda' here is to point out
Roy's distain towards his customers who
cannot work through his inconsistencies...

Though, apparently, you have an agenda of
sorts, otherwise you wouldn't be posting
this garbage! Shame in you!

Chuck, WA7RAI



Hi Chuck,
just looking at your web site, it's hard for
the ordinary ham to distinguish it from that of any other antenna shark.
Do you have any engineering assessments by any qualified, disinterested
, antenna testing facility? (Shootouts don't qualify.)
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Chuck wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...

Trust me, most of us here grasp *exactly* what is going on.



Self delusion must one of your strong
points, eh?



You're doing fine in that department.

EZNEC works very well and a few minor GUI
misfeatures are never going to alter that.
It's based on real science, not handwaving
and hearsay like some other things.

Stop digging Chuck.

Andy Cowley wrote in message ...
Chuck wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...

Trust me, most of us here grasp *exactly* what is going on.



Self delusion must one of your strong
points, eh?



You're doing fine in that department.

EZNEC works very well and a few minor GUI
misfeatures are never going to alter that.
It's based on real science, not handwaving
and hearsay like some other things.

Stop digging Chuck.

Oh, of course... silly me! How could I have
ever thought handwaving and hearsay was
the basis for EZNEC... gee, thanks for the
edification, Andy.

Chuck, WA7RAI

Tom Donaly wrote in message
...
Chuck wrote:
...
Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and
I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC
based programs cannot model my design
simply from their inability to simulate a
virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line.

A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
That's a good one. Very inventive.

Tom,

Either you're remarkably ignorant, or
you've made a failed attempt at being
clever... which is it?

Chuck, WA7RAI

Wes Stewart wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck"
writes:
[snip]
|
|Apparently, when you don't like a message
|you attempt to malign the messenger...


and then goes on to malign me.


I'm disappointed, Wes. I was expecting
a rational response, not this baseless
accusation. There was nothing pejorative
in my response. Apparently, intellectual
honesty is not one of your assets.

Chuck, WA7RAI

Chuck wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote in message
...

Chuck wrote:

...

Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and
I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC
based programs cannot model my design
simply from their inability to simulate a
virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line.

A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
That's a good one. Very inventive.


Tom,

Either you're remarkably ignorant, or
you've made a failed attempt at being
clever... which is it?

Chuck, WA7RAI





I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those
things go, it was pretty good.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote in message
m...
Chuck wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote in message
...

Chuck wrote:

...

Nonsense! I have made the assertion - and
I continue to do so - that minninec and NEC
based programs cannot model my design
simply from their inability to simulate a
virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line.

A "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
That's a good one. Very inventive.


Tom,

Either you're remarkably ignorant, or
you've made a failed attempt at being
clever... which is it?

Chuck, WA7RAI





I didn't make up that silly bafflegab, you did. As those
things go, it was pretty good.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom,

Your reply is most revealing as to your
ignorance in this regard!

Chuck, WA7RAI