On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:59:12 -0500, wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:36:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

Wow. You are truly a smart man.


Yes I am.


I nominate you for the next
professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud.


Nobody cares.


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.

You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.









----== 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 have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:22:23 -0500, wrote in
:


You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.


That's why I offered, many times, to have others present to monitor
the test. Or didn't you read it the first six times I wrote it?








----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:03:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:22:23 -0500, wrote in
:


You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.


That's why I offered, many times, to have others present to monitor
the test. Or didn't you read it the first six times I wrote it?

Then the only thing left to do is buy the antenna. Get on with it.

wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.

I was hoping this would come to an end as I have Frank on my killfile list
and I still have to read his bull****. Unfortunately I have to swallow my
pride and agree with Frank, the 102" is king hands down. But if it makes you
feel better Frank tends to either lie to prove his point or he simply has no
clue when it comes to RF theory. He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
anything to get the bull**** started.

I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp
and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it
next to
my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk
around 4 or 5 feet away from the
antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to
see this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up
and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out
what the hell was going on!!!
Amazing what a bit of RF can do!!

Gen, J. O'Neill

"Jack O'Neill" wrote in message
...
I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt
amp
and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it next
to
my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk
around 4 or 5 feet away from the
antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to see
this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up
and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out what
the hell was going on!!! Amazing what a bit of RF can do!!

Gen, J. O'Neill

Yeah, been there and done that. Fluorescent blacklight was more impressive.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in
:

snip
..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
anything to get the bull**** started.


Once again..... when did I say that? I searched google but only found
-your- post with the alleged quote:

http://tinyurl.com/ckvhb

Please reference the post, or at least provide a link.








----== 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 Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in
:

snip
..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
anything to get the bull**** started.

Define "talk". Is that a keyclown term meaning 12db gain such as
the X-Terminator is purported to have over a 108" whip? Is it like
"bird watts" which are somehow better than real watts? Or "swing"
which is considered better than PEP? And by the way, 100 watts
is illegal on CB.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in
:

snip
..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
anything to get the bull**** started.

Define "talk". Is that a keyclown term meaning 12db gain such as
the X-Terminator is purported to have over a 108" whip?
Talk, you know flapping your lips as you are doing now. As far as the
x-terminator, you got the wrong guy asshole. I don't own one and never made
that claim.

Is it like
"bird watts" which are somehow better than real watts? Or "swing"
which is considered better than PEP? And by the way, 100 watts
is illegal on CB.

What the **** are you rambling about. Did I say anything about PEP or swing
or watts?
By the way, I could care less about 100 watts being illegal you pole smoker.