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

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

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:44:02 -0700, "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.

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

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

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

Hi Chuck,

It may be regarded as ignorance, especially when your claim is
unsubstantiated and demands that your proof is available only through
a privileged knowledge. However being ignorant is not the same as
being stupid. The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or
exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your
claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:44:02 -0700, "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.


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


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


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


Hi Chuck,

It may be regarded as ignorance, especially when your claim is
unsubstantiated and demands that your proof is available only through
a privileged knowledge. However being ignorant is not the same as
being stupid. The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or
exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your
claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to
seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the
reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:31:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:
I suspect Chuck's phrase is little more than an attempt to
seem technically erudite without, alas, conveying any information to the
reader. In short, bafflegab if done intentionally, self deceit otherwise.

Hi Tom,

Well considering "virtual bi-directional coaxial phasing/delay line."
in isolation, I find it rather un-remarkable (if this is in fact an
accurate quote). Afterall, each and every aspect is perfectly
achievable by any NEC modeler on the market (even ones with less than
standard GUIs).

Virtual? That is the first approximation of modeling from the outset.

Bi-directional? There is nothing to impede direction in any
interpretation.

Coaxial? This is merely a tedious exercise in construction.

Phasing/delay line? This follows of necessity and application of ANY
design of wire described within ANY modeler.

Is there something special about the combination of the isolated terms
that invalidates their being realized in ANY modeler? That is, is
there something special about a "virtual bi-directional" anything that
is not achieved separately as "virtual" or "bi-directional?"
Further, is there some unique entity of "bi-directional coaxial" that
fails resolution in a model? Or is "coaxial phasing/delay" unknown in
the art of modeling? I see nothing original and foreign about
"phasing/delay line" within the practice of modeling.

Does this arcane art only appear at the third order of terms? That
is, is there something unachieved by modelers in regard to "virtual
bi-directional coaxial?" This goes again to the simple tedium of
description of the various wires to construct one - tedium is not
unique unfortunately as anyone who has watched the Republicans
unsuccessfully try to pass their own agenda within their own
majorities can attest.

Perhaps it arrives at the fourth order of chaining terms. However, at
this point it becomes regressive evidence of that same tedium, which
can be simply resolved without a dictionary if only one were practiced
in the art of modeling. Let's see, there are 5! ways to de-convolve
this conundrum and none appear to be outside of the scope of rendering
in a model. As such, it appears to be through the poverty of the
carpenter rather than of the tool.

Barring testimonials, I may be wrong and my ignorance be disclosed by
evidence. Or some may call me stupid but not Ishmael ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:44:02 -0700, "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.

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

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

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

Hi Chuck,

Hi, Richard,

It may be regarded as ignorance,

It may be regarded as ignorance when
one questions a simple term...

especially when your claim is
unsubstantiated

Not in the minds of users, or to
those who made confirmation
indepently.

and demands that your proof is available only through
a privileged knowledge.

Knowledge comes from experience...
anyone can achieve it if they truly had the
desire.

Getting off one's butt and performing
experiments works wonders in this
regard...

However being ignorant is not the same as
being stupid.

Agreed.

The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or
exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your
claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance
since you are the one making the
allegation. The design is time tested,
and I tire of closed minds.

If some folks wish to remain ignorant
in this regard, it's their loss, for they
only deny themselves a better way.

I have more important concerns in
my life do deal with now.

73,
Chuck, WA7RAI


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:14:47 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or
exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your
claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance

Hi Chuck,

That is about as funny as when Art appeared here proclaiming the
marvels of his new invention - and then telling us it was our
responsibility to prove his claims. Can you guess how many years ago
that was?

I'm afraid you are in line behind cfa claims, eh claims, fractal
claims and the notable efficiency per unit length claims.

But as you have more important things to do, one wonders why you spend
so much time with these trivial issues?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC