Hubris aside Roy, you still fail to address the
most salient: due to a programming
inconsistency - yours - your customer feels
he is left with no option but to come to this
NG in search of an answer to a dilemma.

Rather than apologizing for your programming
failure, you berate him instead.

If I were in your position (and I have been), I
would have made an apology, then offered
a free upgrade once the inconsistency was
resolved.

Is your ego so fragile that it is more important
than your customer's satisfaction?

Apparently so...

Indeed, it seems our views on business ethics
are as opposite as are our views on the need
to model a bi-directional coaxial phasing line,
as well as the induced energy that would be
present at the reverse input of such a line, in
a dual element (critically coupled) broadside
array.

Tom, you're absolutely right. And the number of times I've been asked
this particular question shows that I do need to address the issue being
discussed.

But. . .

While there are some standards which can just about universally be
agreed on as far as usability and consistency are concerned, there are
vast differences in opionion about how a large number of features should
be handled. An interface that's intuitive to one person is hopelessly
awkward to another. I know this for a fact, since I get comments clear
across the spectrum about the program and its interface. During product
development, I often ask the beta testers to choose among two or more
ways of implementing a feature, and seldom get unanimity. Two things
I've learned in this very interesting endeavor a 1. Avoid making
changes or implementing features to please one or a small number of
people. 2. You can't please everyone. Considering the complexity of the
program, it's a certainty that everyone can find something he doesn't like.

Complaints like Chuck's would bother me if it weren't for the very large
number of positive comments I receive, the amateurs and professional
customers who continue to purchase upgrades, and the commercial
customers who keep buying more and more copies.

Since yours is one of the few available
in-depth interfaces to the NEC(n) engine, this
is not surprising. What is surprising is your
cavalier attitude - I'd think a seasoned
professional like yourself would want to do
his very best.

Chuck, WA7RAI

Complaints and negative
comments aren't to be ignored by any means, but the positive feedback
keeps them in context. Anyone who does buy the program gets a fast and
complete refund if not fully satisfied (although, ironically, they might
not know that if they're unwilling to open the manual) -- there's simply
no way to get a bad deal and no excuse to feel cheated. The demo program
is exactly like the full program with the single exception of the
segment limit, and includes the full manual, so anyone can see exactly
what the program is like before they buy it. Those who don't like it
hopefully won't buy it.

It is indeed my goal to make the program operable without any reference
to the manual. A secondary goal is to make the manual as complete as
possible, so a user can easily find out how to do something that isn't
immediately obvious (remembering that what's obvious to one person is
often obtuse to another). I'll never fully meet both goals, but I do
keep trying. And I appreciate the suggestions and comments.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tom Ring wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thanks for the responses. The suggestions were constructive, and they
confirmed my observation that some people will do just about anything,
including newsgroup posting, to avoid looking in the manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


As someone who has done a large amount of software design and
implementation with highly varied target audiences, I would suggest that
making the design such that minimal need for reference to the manual
because of multiple paths to user desired results is something to be
looked at seriously. Sorry about the awkward verbage, I'm not sure how
to express it elegantly.

tom
K0TAR

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 N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

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.

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.

Chuck, WA7RAI


Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

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.

Wes Stewart wrote in message
news
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:
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

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

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:01:12 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

[snip]
|
|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...

One only look at the deluded victims and followers of the likes of
Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Jim Jones, the Nigerian finance minister,
etc. to realize that hucksters never find a shortage of true
believers.

Let me show you how this works.

I _personally_ guarantee you that my design for a 3-element 20-meter
Yagi will out perform any Raibeam of the same boomlength and at the
same height above ground. (I'll leave out the "electrical
boomlength", whatever that means)

Now it is up to *you* to prove this claim false.

And like any good huckster, as "proof" of the superiority of my
design, I offer these testimonials:

With the antenna at a modest height of 50' above ground and fed with
250' of coax, in the recent ARRL Field Day contest Single-op N7WS was
able to hold a frequency while running 100 W (SSB) on emergency
power. In only 17 hours of operation 1357 20-meter Q's were logged.
All states and all ARRL sections were contacted.

During the recent YV0D expedition, N7WS worked them not once, but
twice on SSB (this ****ed them off, but I'm tired of not being in the
log when I know that I worked them), on the first call, and also
worked them with ease on CW.

http://dx.qsl.net/cgi-bin/logsearch.cgi?L=yv0d&C=n7ws

Etc., etc....