On 1 Nov 2004 22:33:56 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

rec.radio.shortwave is the wrong ng for an antenna related debate????

Hi Mark,

Cool your jets. I once closely observed this group for a month and
found that less than 0.5% of the postings actually corresponded to
discussing Shortwave. Offering advice on antennas resides just below
the noise level and those who get tired of listening to that
background trash come here anyway.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
(Mark Keith) wrote:

Telamon wrote in message

No, I'm not proving basic theory and design to you over Usenet. This is
the wrong newsgroup for that. Go play in rec.radio.amateur.antenna

rec.radio.shortwave is the wrong ng for an antenna related debate????
And we are talking about a receive antenna used by many MWL's, not one
used by hams for transmitting. Wrong NG???
****, all that off topic crap must have warped your frigging brain....
I guess if it ain't off topic, or written by some ignorant SOB that
just wants to stir up controversy about Bush/Kerry "dumb and dumber",
it don't belong....Get a grip...


Besides you have have already stated experimental results contrary to
basic theory and practice to your own satisfaction. How am I going to
challenge that?

By providing contrasting experimemental results or data... How else???
Are you presently under experimental medication, or are you normally
this slow?


Sorry Markey I'm not playing rec.radio.amateur.antenna game. Go play
with the other "Professional Trolls."

Well, Telley, I take this to mean you can't provide contrasting
results or data to refute my claims...Fine. Go play with yourself
then. But every time I see you cut down rraa for no good reason, as
you have seen you do a few times recently, I'm gonna jump your ass
like stink on a turd. If you can't take the heat, keep out of the
kitchen. No one has a gun to your head, making you read certain posts,
even if crossposted. And if you disagree with someones "thesis", why
don't you just provide contrasting data or results to refute his
claims. Seems it would be more useful that acting like a jackass, and
calling him a troll, thesis writer, or whatever goofball tag you want
to attach. MK

Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:04:24 GMT, Telamon
wrote:
Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.
new-age fractal thinking

MK,

What you may be missing, is that the 'average' End-User of the
Coax Cable [Shielded] Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Loop Antenna
is simply 'interested' in the "Practical Application" and RESULTS
Gain from using [The Device].

Their "Focus Is:
* How To Build/Buy It.
* How To Use It.
* What To Expect From It.

The 'target' "Reader" of the 'original' "Post" was the everyday
Shortwave Listener { No License Required } .

Know Your Reader - Communicate Effectively - KISAP !
[ Keep It Simple And Practical ! ]

REMEMBER: What Works... WORKS ! { No Theory Required }

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Mark Keith) wrote in message
= = = . com...
Telamon wrote in message

No, I'm not proving basic theory and design to you over Usenet. This is
the wrong newsgroup for that. Go play in rec.radio.amateur.antenna

rec.radio.shortwave is the wrong ng for an antenna related debate????
And we are talking about a receive antenna used by many MWL's, not one
used by hams for transmitting. Wrong NG???
****, all that off topic crap must have warped your frigging brain....
I guess if it ain't off topic, or written by some ignorant SOB that
just wants to stir up controversy about Bush/Kerry "dumb and dumber",
it don't belong....Get a grip...


Besides you have have already stated experimental results contrary to
basic theory and practice to your own satisfaction. How am I going to
challenge that?

By providing contrasting experimemental results or data... How else???
Are you presently under experimental medication, or are you normally
this slow?


Sorry Markey I'm not playing rec.radio.amateur.antenna game. Go play
with the other "Professional Trolls."

Well, Telley, I take this to mean you can't provide contrasting
results or data to refute my claims...Fine. Go play with yourself
then. But every time I see you cut down rraa for no good reason, as
you have seen you do a few times recently, I'm gonna jump your ass
like stink on a turd. If you can't take the heat, keep out of the
kitchen. No one has a gun to your head, making you read certain posts,
even if crossposted. And if you disagree with someones "thesis", why
don't you just provide contrasting data or results to refute his
claims. Seems it would be more useful that acting like a jackass, and
calling him a troll, thesis writer, or whatever goofball tag you want
to attach. MK

Telamon wrote in message

Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.

Plonk

What a chicken **** Telley is.... MK

(RHF) wrote in message . com...
MK,

What you may be missing, is that the 'average' End-User of the
Coax Cable [Shielded] Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Loop Antenna
is simply 'interested' in the "Practical Application" and RESULTS
Gain from using [The Device].

No I'm not missing anything.

Their "Focus Is:
* How To Build/Buy It.

I have posted one version of that...

* How To Use It.

Well, duhhhhh....

* What To Expect From It.

I think my comments about low noise or the lack of it, follow under
this guideline.

The 'target' "Reader" of the 'original' "Post" was the everyday
Shortwave Listener { No License Required } .

And???? I guess that means you think all casual users of a device
should live in the dark, be fed clumps of ****, and be taught old
wive's tales... Right...



Know Your Reader - Communicate Effectively - KISAP !

Know my reader? You must be kidding....I don't have *readers*....Or at
least, none of them have sent me a subscription yet...If you want me
to tailor my posts to a certain type of simple minded dumbass, you
will have to pay me.

[ Keep It Simple And Practical ! ]

My PVC version can't get too much simplier...

REMEMBER: What Works... WORKS ! { No Theory Required }

I'm sorry. I am not going through life as a crash test dummy....If you
want to, be my guest. Remember! I didn't write the *thesis* as he
called it. I just commented to the smartass that complained about it.
If you don't want to read something, no one is holding a gun to your
head. I find Telleys remarks about *censorship* on the shortwave NG to
be really offensive. It ain't *his* NG. After reading his last two
posts, I find *him* equally offensive. Only a childish asshole has to
make up names for people he can't agree with. I'm glad the goofy
******* "plonked" me. He's obviously a smartass that wants to control
how other people think or act on *his* shortwave NG. That was not the
first time I'd seen him make smartass comments about RRAA for no good
reason either...I live on both groups, although I don't normally
crosspost, so I considered his comments to include me. MK

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:04:24 GMT, Telamon
wrote:
Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.
new-age fractal thinking

Hummmm. Maybe so. I received an antenna design today in an e-mail. It
sure brings back memories of early fractal adventures I've heard
described. I suspect this antenna will be a huge hit among the simple
types who want an antenna that is easy to erect, but don't care how,
or if, it actually works according to plan. The antenna was designed
by KG5RQ, hence the name...No, it is not a slur against *the* G5RQ in
England, whoever he may be... MK
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/g5rq.jpg

MK

It's So Nice That We Are Communication ;-}

there is a 'trick' to that too ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Mark Keith) wrote in message
= = = . com...
(RHF) wrote in message . com...
MK,

What you may be missing, is that the 'average' End-User of the
Coax Cable [Shielded] Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Loop Antenna
is simply 'interested' in the "Practical Application" and RESULTS
Gain from using [The Device].

No I'm not missing anything.

Their "Focus Is:
* How To Build/Buy It.

I have posted one version of that...

* How To Use It.

Well, duhhhhh....

* What To Expect From It.

I think my comments about low noise or the lack of it, follow under
this guideline.

The 'target' "Reader" of the 'original' "Post" was the everyday
Shortwave Listener { No License Required } .

And???? I guess that means you think all casual users of a device
should live in the dark, be fed clumps of ****, and be taught old
wive's tales... Right...



Know Your Reader - Communicate Effectively - KISAP !

Know my reader? You must be kidding....I don't have *readers*....Or at
least, none of them have sent me a subscription yet...If you want me
to tailor my posts to a certain type of simple minded dumbass, you
will have to pay me.

[ Keep It Simple And Practical ! ]

My PVC version can't get too much simplier...

REMEMBER: What Works... WORKS ! { No Theory Required }

I'm sorry. I am not going through life as a crash test dummy....If you
want to, be my guest. Remember! I didn't write the *thesis* as he
called it. I just commented to the smartass that complained about it.
If you don't want to read something, no one is holding a gun to your
head. I find Telleys remarks about *censorship* on the shortwave NG to
be really offensive. It ain't *his* NG. After reading his last two
posts, I find *him* equally offensive. Only a childish asshole has to
make up names for people he can't agree with. I'm glad the goofy
******* "plonked" me. He's obviously a smartass that wants to control
how other people think or act on *his* shortwave NG. That was not the
first time I'd seen him make smartass comments about RRAA for no good
reason either...I live on both groups, although I don't normally
crosspost, so I considered his comments to include me. MK