Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+L\s+for\s+160\s+meters\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+L\s+for\s+160\s+meters\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:37:11 -0700; Wrong again, Carl. I've seen it mentioned here several times on this reflector that radials such a small a percent of a wavelength above ground really don't act as tuned elevated radials since they c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00448.html (9,634 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:50:13 -0700; I don't get it. That's going to generate several thousand documents to wade through, most of which won't address your claim. Why come back with such an obtuse and evasive answer if you actually have; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00449.html (10,204 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:19:06 -0400; What you really mean is that on this reflector you have read something that happens to agree with your view while dismissing all others. What a great concept. If The ONLY determining factor is the fi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00451.html (11,776 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:19:19 -0400; -- Original Message -- From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> To: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com> Cc: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com> Sent:; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00452.html (12,304 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: "Jim McLaughlin" <dearborn9@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:19:08 -0500; Dave, Maybe if possible just forget him. You've seen him do that before and he will again. He is just one of those 'self proclaimed' experts who will always have either more or better data then anybo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00453.html (12,259 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:40:55 -0700; I'm going to take WA9FPT's advice from here on out, but just to clarify: a. The other comments come from people with more credibility than you have. b. I never said that it was necessary to pursue a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00457.html (13,287 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 meters (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:50:39 -0400; The sign of a very insecure person with a high level of self doubt is when the most intelligent statement they can make is a personal attack. Thankfully, only a very tiny minority with that personali; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00458.html (13,302 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 Meters (score: 1): Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:50:28 +0000; Or I need new glasses, or perhaps both. 73, VR2BrettGraham/QRT & unsubscribing. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00534.html (8,320 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted L for 160 Meters (score: 1): Author: John/K4WJ <k4wj@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:05:33 -0400; Don't worry about it Brett. Tim is cool! He was known as Ugly Mother back in the 80s when he worked 2 meter repeaters in the Ft Lauderdale area. I think he even signed as En Four Ugly Mother. :-) I w; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00542.html (9,599 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 29
Page: [1] [2]