I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
your less than stellar reading comprehension.


Once again, you said "we should never trust the claim of others". But
after that backfired in your face you qualified it with, "but it is
easier to believe....." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "never"
doesn't include "easier", does it?

Again your reading comprehension is flawed. The other poster said
never. I said "you don't have to believe me"

What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.


That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
sense, ok?

Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
to seek the truth?


Yet you can't account for the results. Looks like you didn't go far
enough.

I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:59:37 -0500, wrote in
:


I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
your less than stellar reading comprehension.


Once again, you said "we should never trust the claim of others". But
after that backfired in your face you qualified it with, "but it is
easier to believe....." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "never"
doesn't include "easier", does it?

Again your reading comprehension is flawed. The other poster said
never. I said "you don't have to believe me"


My reading comprehension is just fine:

======
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:35:07 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

======

It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.


What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.


That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
sense, ok?

Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
to seek the truth?


Yet you can't account for the results. Looks like you didn't go far
enough.

I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

snip
The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

======

It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.

I stand corrected. You should never say never.


I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?

Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
truth. You don't have to buy it.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:36:11 -0500, wrote in
:


snip
The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

======

It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.

I stand corrected. You should never say never.


No, -YOU- should never say never.


I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?

Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
truth. You don't have to buy it.


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:46:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in
:

snip
I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?

Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
truth. You don't have to buy it.


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
:


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.


Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more. The antenna
argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----