In article <its.a.rainy.day.so.I.answered@houston-hunks.com>
Stagger Backpedal Boy Lee <SLee@houston-hunks.com> wrote:

[newsgroups trimmed back to original group]

[Newsgroups restored, they already know what a complete moron 
you are over in alt.sci.seti, Backpedal Boy]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:24:20 +0100 (CET), Secwet Woger
<mixmaster@eleitl.dyndns.org> wrote:
:
: Backpedal Boy Stagger Lee whined:
:
: >It was very much like the time you were totally f*cked up about SWR
: >and line losses, and you invoked the supposed authority of a
: >correspondence school teacher in an effort to climb back out of the
: >hole (oops: that's spelled "whole" according to you) that you'd dug
: >for yourself.  The teacher vindicated my position in the email you
: >reposted, but you didn't even realize it until it was too late.
:
: What a backpedal, Backpedal Boy, after the Devry (not a
: 'correspondence school' per se) Professor got over laughing at
: your stupid ignorant ass, he actually backed up the formula from
: his textbook that YOU claimed was in error
: and was backed up by his email. And still you stubbornly insisted you
: knew more than the Professor...BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
:
: Sort of like LRod's reply to your "I made you look" over the "International Radio License > : issued by the UN" gaffe of yours:
:
: "So when someone spouts that "A is B" which I know to be wrong, and I
: do some research which verifies that "A is definitely not B" and I
: challenge the someone to prove their obvious lie, and the best they
: can do is say, "ha, ha; made you look," what does that say about them?
:
: Hint: "them" in the preceding is you. The answer is not complimentary."

[end of restore of what the sad old man Backpedal Boy ran away 
from]

How ARE things at the retirement home, Lenny?
Are they changing your colostomy bag on a regular basis, or are 
you eating out of it again?

<STOMP!>

Aww, Backpedal Boy is so CUTE when he stamps his club foot like 
that in that impotent rage.
I bet you even have your flabby little fists clentched so tight 
your dirty fingernails
are cutting into your hairy palms.

Indeed, SWR Boy.  Let's revisit your original post, recorded on Google
as Message-ID: <8C71YHSI37921.3957175926@anonymous.poster>.  In it you said:

Fuckhead Bacxkpedal Boy nLee exhibits his hypocrisy, since he's 
the Google Queen
in <8474570164@houston-hunks.com>:
"Ah, I see that you are reposting old stuff by means of which 
you long
ago exhibited your profound ignorance"

I'm glad you REVERE my posts so much you continue to mull over 
tham ad infitinum, Backpedal Boy.
You still haven't backed up ANYTHING you say....

"If you use the formula correctly, which maybe those coke-bottle
bottomed glasses prohibits you from doing so, you wouldn't make a
complete ass of yourself. But from reading your posts, I suppose you
just can't help yourself.

"Here's an example of using that formula, you gutless chickenshit.

"Here's the formula, so you can write it down when you sober up:

"LOSS dB -10 log ((SWR-1)/(SWR+1))

"Let's say the SWR is 3:1 and figure the loss:

"-10 log ((3-1)/(3+1))= approximately 3dB loss"

You clearly believed the formula was always correct, and then posted
what was supposed to be proof by its author.

Yeah, imagine that, I actually cited the textbook and author, 
unlike you. I even used and example DIRECTLY from the textbook.

 Unfortunately for you,
the author explicitly stated that it applies only to the special cases
of a shorted or open termination.

Wrong, that's not what the Textbook says......but you never let 
the facts get in the way of your profound ignorance.
And the explanation was for YOUR benefit, not mine, since I 
passed the courses with an "A" average. And what was your 
average in school, D minus, apparently from the way you post.

To quote from your own post, Mr. Wheeler stated:

Is it my post, or Mr. Wheeler's? Can you even tell the 
difference?

"Terminating a perfect, lossless transmission line with an open or short
 will result in an infinite SWR at the input end because all of the
 reflected signal makes it back to the signal source. However, real lines
 have loss, and this causes the reflected signal to weaken as it moves
 back towards the signal source, hence the fall in SWR as one gets
 farther from the load.

"The only problem one might have in employing the technique is that some
 reflectance gear (like the MFJ) might not like certain impedance
 combinations on a line (as you move down the line, there will be points
 where the impedance is purely real, capacitive, inductive, etc), and at
 certain positions the gear may not be able to deliver an accurate or
 consistent reading.

"I hope this explanation helps. I left out the mathematical discussion
 from the book since it is not really appropriate there.

 73,
 Tom Wheeler"

The explanation was for YOUR benefit, stupid, I already took the 
courses.

Do you see the part about terminating a transmission line with an open or
short circuit?

Yes, unlike you,  I can read.... Except in the text, pages 403-
405 in "Electronic Communications for Technicians, Tom Wheeler, 
(c) 2001 Prentice-Hall, Inc. doesn't mention it being an open 
circuit or an open transmission line, dumbass.

DO YOU SEE THAT????

There, there, old pieces of shit like you shouldn't get their 
blood pressure up that high. Calm down, take a nice nap, get 
back on your medications.

It means that the formula you gave only works for a special case.  It
means that you screwed up.

No, you said it doesn't apply AT ALL.......

Stupid Lee (Stagger Lee@ houston-hunks.com) provides yet another 
example of his idiocy in
<way.way.beyond.woger@houston-hunks.com>:
"That's because transmission line loss and SWR are not directly 
related."

Your inability to factually recall your own posts could be a sign of
incipient mental illness.

So does your stubborn clinging to your ignorance.

Get help.

No, it means, you as usual, take something out of context in 
order to prop up that weak argument of yours. Do take a remedial 
reading course, and see if you can obtain a copy of the textbook 
in question, before espousing your ignorant take on theory you 
could not master if you tried.
You can't even GET an amateur radio license.

Now, go read some more Intel "literature" so you can misquote it.

--
Stagger Backpedal Boy Lee who claims to be an expert on 
everything electronic/computer
reveals why he's such an "expert" because he plagiarizes from 
other sources in <woger.steps.in.another.one@houston-hunks.com>:
"I finally quoted the Intel literature..."