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