In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Telamon wrote:

...
Yeah but we don't care about transmitting goofball, we care about
receiving and so that statement "A random wire (e.g. inverted L)
transmits nicely if you use a tuner at the feed point" by Dave is
relevant where you are not.


You ridiculous fool. You are the most complete brain dead example of a
sub-human which has ever been presented to me ...

You dumb twit. We don't care about transmitting.

Receiving is EQUALLY as important as the transmitting element in the
above.

Again you dumb twit, we don't care about transmitting.

Or, to explain it to the necessary point, for a mental midget, such
as yourself: "If the signal being transmitted is low power, or there
are bad conditions, and, perhaps, the guy is in Australia, I'd better
have the "best" antenna possible. However, if I am receiving the
"50,000 watt atmosphere burner", 50 miles away, a rusty coat-hanger,
most likely, would work ..."

You are one funny guy I'll give you that.

However, you mileage may vary with you "magical antenna logic!" grin

The only magic around here is spouted by you. Your experience is
"magically" different than anyone else's and your antenna theory is
simplistic at best not to mention the great job you do of putting words
in peoples mouthes never spoken but what else can we expect from the
comprehension impaired.

I'll tell you what is "magical" and that's the conversations you seem to
have in your head before you post.

You hit me as a guy attempting to pass off "magical physics" to
kindergarten-ers; but then, even that is, most likely, a challenge for
you ... sad, so very, very sad ... :-(

Yeah, very sad of you to keep plonking and then continue to read me.

What a goofball.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California