It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
really has to know is what it does.


But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
word of everyone else in this group.

What's my word based on? A test. What's your word based on?
Consensus?

But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.

So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:45:30 -0500, wrote in
:


It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
really has to know is what it does.


But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
word of everyone else in this group.

What's my word based on? A test.


A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.


What's your word based on?
Consensus?


Common sense and the laws of physics.


But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.


Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?


So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.








----== 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 =----

What's my word based on? A test.

A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.

A test is better than no test.

What's your word based on?
Consensus?

Common sense and the laws of physics.

Consensus and incomplete laws of physics

But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.

So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.

Why the results?

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
:


What's my word based on? A test.

A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.

A test is better than no test.


The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.


What's your word based on?
Consensus?

Common sense and the laws of physics.

Consensus and incomplete laws of physics


Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.


But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom? I am suggesting you make the
effort to research the reasons behind your results. The way it looks
now, you don't care about the reasons just as long as the results
agree with your opinion. That's not truth, tnom -- that's deception
(and it's a good thing you aren't selling these antennas because you
could be charged with the crime of misrepresentation and/or deceptive
business practices).


So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.

Why the results?

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?








----== 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 =----

Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.

Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
suffering from salt poisoning.

I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom?

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?

I don't do charity, especially for you.

Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.

Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
suffering from salt poisoning.

I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.

Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom?

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?

I don't do charity, especially for you.

What is the antenna you want to test? Is it a "mr. coily"? Is it a
"x-terminator"? I can tell you right now those are keyclown antennas
meant to appeal to truckers and keyclowns. They perform like ****,
but they look cool.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:54:40 -0500, wrote in
:


Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.

Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
suffering from salt poisoning.


Your sharp rhetoric is cutting me to pieces. Really it is. Oh dear, I
don't think I can take any more. Please stop.


I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.


Says you and -only- you.


Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?

If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom?

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.


You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?

I don't do charity, especially for you.


How is that charity, tnom? If the antenna works like you say then you
aren't out a single penny. You can afford -nothing-, can't you? Or do
you -expect- your antenna to fail the test? That seems more likely.









----== 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 =----

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results

Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?

Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
lie, just people. Sound familiar?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:22:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
:


What's my word based on? A test.

A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.

A test is better than no test.


The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.
ah yes the experiment whose results would support some strange ideas
(both true and not) one being that the Opes were right and Galieio was
worng the other modern physics
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account