I do believe that Tom is echoing what Terman is stating. Look again at
I totally disagree with the majority of this posting which
misrepresents what Terman actually said
into a self serving statement to give cover to an earlier misstatement.

Terman's statement
.. He states...........the parrasitic antenna acts as a "director"
He does not say it is a director and puts it into quotation purely that
is what others call it.
If he felt that it was self explanable he would have stated that it was
a director without the need for quotation marks and prefixes the term
with the word "acts" for clarification instead of the word "is" He then
follows on with his description that further explanion to emphasis the
need to place the term inside quotationas by adding his reasons
....."and tends to concentrate the radiated field in its direction"
Note he states "tends" rather than the word "directs "because as he
stated earlier
"it acts...." and not "is" and tjhen goes on to add the coup de gras by
stating what it dioes do......
"tends to concentrate the radiated field in its direction".
I view that asa very precise statement in describing what some call a
director as actually being a field with a tendency...e.t.c.
Frankly it reiterates what Tom said where one can be doomed if it not
described correctly
and it would appear that Terman had the term "director" very much in
mind when he described what others termed as a director. He certainly
was an amazing man who saw from the beginning
the need to refrain from the word "direct" or "director" as the field
generated does not warrent such an absolute word. This may appear to be
semantics as far as you may be concerned but the above analysis of what
he actually said provides a confirmation of what others were saying.
I would agreee howver with a small point that you reffered to and that
was regarding a fool who argues with Termam as one must first
understand what one actually read and convey the message to the brain
where the emphasis is to confirm what one wanted to read'
Art