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

Richard Clark wrote in message
...
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?

Hi Richard,

It is my opinion - and only an opinion -
that Art's antenna did achieve critical
coupling... and perhaps yet another
case where the model failed to agree
with empirical observations...

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?

A few hours a month or less is 'much'
time? Surely you jest...

In any case, since you have no first-
hand experience with my design, all you
can offer is mere opinion - the antithesis
of fact.

Since my design can stand on its
established record, the onus is on you
to provide something of real substance
- say, empirical data - to support your
opinion.

73,
Chuck, WA7RAI


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:56:15 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

the onus is on you
to provide something

Hi Chuck,

Like I said, this has been a hoot.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC