Where's the beef, Rita?

On Friday, October 03,2003 at 4:27 PM "Rita A. Berkowitz"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

"Don, yes I did evaluate a pair of the RS antennas as well
a few other commercially available yagis, and panel antennas.
I also tested a couple homebrew antennas that I made. I used
both NetStumbler and a cheapy B&K 2650 to do basic signal
strength measurements at home. I did do print screens of the
Netstumbler results and of the 2650 hooked up to my laptop.
I am in the process of throwing together a very crude, but
detailed, website so you guys could view the data and make
your own determination. I will be posting a link to it earlier
next week."

Would "earlier next week" be referring to the week of sunday, October 5,
2003? So far, in all the posts where you've 'dissed' the antennas, the only
empirical data you've provided is in reference to gain you wrote "I didn't
notice any...".

Are you saying that the published Radio Shack gain specification is in
error? By how much?

You went on to say:

"As for the lab testing, the antennas were tested at the shop
for field strength and resonate frequency using both an Agilent
signal generator and spectrum analyzer. The most notable
point that I have observed is that having either the stock
antennas or the RS actually resonating in band. It does seem
that there is a large tolerance in manufacturing. I wonder what
results I would get if 10 RS antennas were evaluated?
Unfortunately, I only have two."

What is the name of "the shop"? Does "the shop" certify the calibration of
their equipment and the results of their testing?

Since "field strength" is not an attribute of any antenna, I presume you
mean that for some level of exitation of the antenna under test the strength
of the resulting field was measured at some distance from the antenna and
compared to the resulting field from other antennas. Is this a correct
presumption? What were the test conditions and what were the results? Did
you perform these tests? Were these tests performed at your request?
....on your antennas?

Did you determine the resonant frequency of these antennas? Why? What did
you determine the resonant frequency to be?

It was on August 3, 2003 that in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) you wrote:
"As with all the garbage Radio Shack sells, this is just another
overpriced item that they are peddling. You won't see any
performance gains over the factory supplied models."

Now you're saying that you acquired two of these "overpriced", "garbage"
items just for the purpose of testing them? It seems more reasonable to
believe you are fabricating lies to avoid admitting that you've been blowing
smoke.

Don W.

> Would "earlier next week" be referring to the week of sunday, October 5,
> 2003? So far, in all the posts where you've 'dissed' the antennas, the
only
> empirical data you've provided is in reference to gain you wrote "I didn't
> notice any...".
>
>



Thank you for your continuing interest in this subject, Don. Yes, the
website is still a work in progress project and will be uploaded when it is
in a presentable format. I'm not very good at web design, and don't admit
to be. So, you will have to be patient while I struggle through the
learning curve.



Also, please note that I found your last posting on this subject very odd as
you vehemently argued the subject like you had "actual" facts and data on
the exact RS antenna in question, when, in fact, you don't. You did
reference a website of a different manufacturer that had specifications of
an antenna that "looked like" the RS antenna and claimed them to apply to
the RS antenna since you felt they may have come from the same manufacturer.
Don, below is a quote from your previous thread in case you forgot:



"I do not own any of the Radio Shack antennas nor have I even seen one
(other
than the photos on the web site.) If I had quantitative data to share, you
bet I would have shared it! I look forward to your web page and the link to
it. PLEASE start a new thread, as I'm praying this one will soon get sucked
into a mysterious Coriolian swirl of a digital bitstream somewhere."



With this being said, I was under the impression that we were going to be
comparing "actual" data that both of us possessed and I was willing to rush
a quick and dirty site to benefit all. Since I now realize that I will be
the only person publishing actual factual data I will present it in a format
that pleases both others and myself that will benefit from it. Thank you
for your interest and support. Please check the site regularly as I will be
updating it shortly.



Rita

"Rita A. Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
<snip>
> Thank you for your continuing interest in this subject, Don. Yes, the
> website is still a work in progress project and will be uploaded when it
is
> in a presentable format. I'm not very good at web design, and don't admit
> to be. So, you will have to be patient while I struggle through the
> learning curve.
>
An alternative would be to simply state your test procedures and results,
although it would be nice to see your screenshots and photos of test setups.
Here's the code for putting an image on your web page:
<IMG SRC="MyImage.gif" ALT="Ooops, the file is missing!">

>
> Also, please note that I found your last posting on this subject very odd
as
> you vehemently argued the subject like you had "actual" facts and data on
> the exact RS antenna in question, when, in fact, you don't.

I do have the very facts and data published by Radio Shack and I do not
dispute that data. You're the one disputing the data and offering NOTHING
to show the Radio Shack data is incorrect.

> You did
> reference a website of a different manufacturer that had specifications of
> an antenna that "looked like" the RS antenna and claimed them to apply to
> the RS antenna since you felt they may have come from the same
manufacturer.

If you really need to know who manufactures the 5.5 dBi antenna sold by both
Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless, I'm sure I can get that information, but
this is really just another 'Rita smokescreen', since the manufacturer of
this antenna is irrelevant. Both retailers are consistent in the
specifications they have published and until I see evidence those
specifications are in error, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of those
specifications. YOU'RE the one claiming the antennas provide no
"performance gains over the factory supplied models" and YOU'RE the one who
has failed to show the Radio Shack (and Pacific Wireless) specifications are
not valid.


> Don, below is a quote from your previous thread in case you forgot:
>
> "I do not own any of the Radio Shack antennas nor have I even seen one
> (other than the photos on the web site.) If I had quantitative data to
share, you
> bet I would have shared it! I look forward to your web page and the link
to
> it. PLEASE start a new thread, as I'm praying this one will soon get
sucked
> into a mysterious Coriolian swirl of a digital bitstream somewhere."
>
> With this being said, I was under the impression that we were going to be
> comparing "actual" data that both of us possessed and I was willing to
rush
> a quick and dirty site to benefit all.

If you actually HAVE any data then you should be as anxious for the world to
see it as you are to make disparaging statements these antennas. The
"actual" data I possess is the published data on these antennas and if your
data is different from the published data, then by all means, publish it on
your quick and dirty site to benefit all!

> Since I now realize that I will be
> the only person publishing actual factual data

wrong, Rita! Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless are already publishing actual
factual data. You are publishing nothing!

> I will present it in a format
> that pleases both others and myself that will benefit from it. Thank you
> for your interest and support. Please check the site regularly as I will
be
> updating it shortly.
>
> Rita
>
Would that be "shortly" as in "earlier next week"?

Don W.

> > Also, please note that I found your last posting on this subject very
odd
> as
> > you vehemently argued the subject like you had "actual" facts and data
on
> > the exact RS antenna in question, when, in fact, you don't.
>
> I do have the very facts and data published by Radio Shack and I do not
> dispute that data. You're the one disputing the data and offering NOTHING
> to show the Radio Shack data is incorrect.
>



You really must be bored and without purpose in life? Also, extremely naive
to believe everything you read from Radio Shack. It was pointed out in the
previous thread by another person that RS use trickery to fool people with
their expanded "data" about audio speakers. While it is entertaining to
debate with you, I find it pointless and counterproductive to the facts of
this thread.


> > You did
> > reference a website of a different manufacturer that had specifications
of
> > an antenna that "looked like" the RS antenna and claimed them to apply
to
> > the RS antenna since you felt they may have come from the same
> manufacturer.
>
> If you really need to know who manufactures the 5.5 dBi antenna sold by
both
> Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless, I'm sure I can get that information, but
> this is really just another 'Rita smokescreen', since the manufacturer of
> this antenna is irrelevant.



Since you really don't have any actual test procedures and charts on the RS
antenna and cling to the claim that the PW antenna data is the same for the
RS antenna because they "look alike" is a weak assumption on your part.
Someone claiming to be as thorough as you clearly knows that this is not
acceptable. While I agree that the manufacturer isn't really important, I
feel that your feeble attempt to use another's data to argue as fact since
you can't pull actual data out of your ass is totally wrong and
unacceptable. You know better, Don.



> Both retailers are consistent in the
> specifications they have published and until I see evidence those
> specifications are in error, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of
those
> specifications. YOU'RE the one claiming the antennas provide no
> "performance gains over the factory supplied models" and YOU'RE the one
who
> has failed to show the Radio Shack (and Pacific Wireless) specifications
are
> not valid.
>
>
> > Don, below is a quote from your previous thread in case you forgot:
> >
> > "I do not own any of the Radio Shack antennas nor have I even seen one
> > (other than the photos on the web site.) If I had quantitative data to
> share, you
> > bet I would have shared it! I look forward to your web page and the
link
> to
> > it. PLEASE start a new thread, as I'm praying this one will soon get
> sucked
> > into a mysterious Coriolian swirl of a digital bitstream somewhere."
> >
> > With this being said, I was under the impression that we were going to
be
> > comparing "actual" data that both of us possessed and I was willing to
> rush
> > a quick and dirty site to benefit all.
>
> If you actually HAVE any data then you should be as anxious for the world
to
> see it as you are to make disparaging statements these antennas. The
> "actual" data I possess is the published data on these antennas and if
your
> data is different from the published data, then by all means, publish it
on
> your quick and dirty site to benefit all!
>



Being "anxious" and posting information in a poorly written format isn't
going to benefit anyone.


> > Since I now realize that I will be
> > the only person publishing actual factual data
>
> wrong, Rita! Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless are already publishing
actual
> factual data. You are publishing nothing!
>



So, you are still clinging to the test procedures and data that PW published
and claiming that it is the same as the RS antenna just cause they "look
alike"? Don, I thought you would be more thorough than that since RS didn't
publish any test procedures and charts like PW did. Very weak!


> > I will present it in a format
> > that pleases both others and myself that will benefit from it. Thank
you
> > for your interest and support. Please check the site regularly as I
will
> be
> > updating it shortly.
> >
> > Rita
> >
> Would that be "shortly" as in "earlier next week"?
>



It will be there when it is there. You see, Don, I have a life, career, and
responsibilities to tend to first. Unlike you, I will be presenting this
data to clarify my results and support my statement that the antenna
provides no usable gain over stock. Since your motives are purely directed
at trying to win a pissing contest and not accepting factual data I know you
will try to make feeble attempts at picking the data apart to support your
weak argument. With this in mind, I feel it is in our best interest to have
all bases covered and have every aspect covered. I'm sure you understand?



Again, I would like to stay and chat with you, but we both know it is
pointless and counterproductive. If you have any factual data about the
antenna in question please feel free to post it as I won't waste time
responding to feeble attempts to be sucked into one of your pissing
contests. You see, this discussion with you really isn't important to me
and I have nothing to gain or lose even if I'm proven right or wrong. You
know the url so please check it regularly to have all your questions
answered.



Rita

"Rita A. Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > > Also, please note that I found your last posting on this subject very
> odd
> > as
> > > you vehemently argued the subject like you had "actual" facts and data
> on
> > > the exact RS antenna in question, when, in fact, you don't.
> >
> > I do have the very facts and data published by Radio Shack and I do not
> > dispute that data. You're the one disputing the data and offering
NOTHING
> > to show the Radio Shack data is incorrect.
> >
>
> You really must be bored and without purpose in life? Also, extremely
naive
> to believe everything you read from Radio Shack. It was pointed out in
the
> previous thread by another person that RS use trickery to fool people with
> their expanded "data" about audio speakers.
>
More "Rita smokescreen". That other person was referring to the use of
'peak music power' vs. RMS in power ratings of audio equipment. Peak music
power is hardly Radio Shack "trickery"! It was neither invented by Radio
Shack nor have I ever seen them use peak music power in their
specifications. I haven't been shopping for audio equipment at Radio Shack
so I can't say they've never given a power rating in 'peak music power', but
the times I can remember seeing such a specification at Radio Shack it was
always RMS. The other person didn't give a Radio Shack stock number, so
there's no way to see what was advertised. In any case it's irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that I'm naive to believe that an antenna that is
advertised by Radio Shack to be a 5.5 dBi antenna is not actually a 5.5 dBi
antenna? I would be far more naive to believe your assertion that the
antennas are NOT 5.5 dBi antennas because Radio Shack has a LOT to lose by
lying about specifications and Rita Berkowitz has nothing to lose by lying
about the extensive testing she has performed on those antennas.

> While it is entertaining to
> debate with you, I find it pointless and counterproductive to the facts of
> this thread.
>

This is not a debate. I'm asking you to support your groundless assertions
and you make a lot of noise about speakers and testing equipment and how you
will provide quantitative data at some future time. The data presented are
those presented by Jim Orfanakos and Radio Shack. You assert the Radio
Shack figures are misleading, but you present no data whatsoever to support
your assertion. Either you can support your assertion or you can't. So far
you can't!

> > > You did reference a website of a different manufacturer that had
> > > specifications of an antenna that "looked like" the RS antenna and
> > > claimed them to apply to the RS antenna since you felt they may
> > > have come from the same manufacturer.
> >
> > If you really need to know who manufactures the 5.5 dBi antenna
> > sold by both Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless, I'm sure I can get
> > that information, but this is really just another 'Rita smokescreen',
> > since the manufacturer of this antenna is irrelevant.
>
> Since you really don't have any actual test procedures and charts on the
RS
> antenna and cling to the claim that the PW antenna data is the same for
the
> RS antenna because they "look alike" is a weak assumption on your part.

More smoke. Sure I believe they are the same antenna and if it was relevant
to the discussion I'd get the name of the factory and tell you where they're
made. It's not relevant.

> Someone claiming to be as thorough as you clearly knows that this
> is not acceptable. While I agree that the manufacturer isn't really
> important, I feel that your feeble attempt to use another's data to
> argue as fact since you can't pull actual data out of your ass is totally
> wrong and unacceptable. You know better, Don.

Where have I attempted to use the data from Pacific Wireless to argue
anything? At least I use the data published on the web site and in the
stores and catalogs of a multi-BILLION dollar corporation. So far you
haven't used any data whatsoever to support your assertion this data is
invalid. You know exactly from where my data comes. In case you have
forgotten, here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/jxm3

>
> > Both retailers are consistent in the
> > specifications they have published and until I see evidence those
> > specifications are in error, I have no reason to doubt the veracity
> > of those specifications. YOU'RE the one claiming the antennas
> > provide no "performance gains over the factory supplied models"
> > and YOU'RE the one who has failed to show the Radio Shack
> > (and Pacific Wireless) specifications are not valid.
> >
> > > Don, below is a quote from your previous thread in case you forgot:
> > >
> > > "I do not own any of the Radio Shack antennas nor have I even seen
> > > one (other than the photos on the web site.) If I had quantitative
data
> > > to share, you bet I would have shared it! I look forward to your web
> > > page and the link to it. PLEASE start a new thread, as I'm praying
> > > this one will soon get sucked into a mysterious Coriolian swirl of a
> > > digital bitstream somewhere."
> > >
> > > With this being said, I was under the impression that we were going
> > > to be comparing "actual" data that both of us possessed and I was
> > > willing to rush a quick and dirty site to benefit all.
> >
> > If you actually HAVE any data then you should be as anxious for the
> > world to see it as you are to make disparaging statements these
> > antennas. The "actual" data I possess is the published data on these
> > antennas and if your data is different from the published data, then by
> > all means, publish it on your quick and dirty site to benefit all!
> >
>
> Being "anxious" and posting information in a poorly written format isn't
> going to benefit anyone.
>
Did you measure the gain of the antenna? What is it? How did you measure
it? You took the time to blow a lot of smoke, why can't you take the time
to present some data and documentation? If the antennas are really not 5.5
dBi antennas, then you should inform everyone of that fact. And since your
data is in contradiction with the published data of a multi-billion dollar
corporation, you probably should do a good job of documenting that any
claimed tests were actually done. Photos would be a plus. I'm sure you
have access to a digital camera and know how to publish photos!

>
> > > Since I now realize that I will be
> > > the only person publishing actual factual data
> >
> > wrong, Rita! Radio Shack and Pacific Wireless are already publishing
> > actual factual data. You are publishing nothing!
> >
>
> So, you are still clinging to the test procedures and data that PW
published
> and claiming that it is the same as the RS antenna just cause they "look
> alike"? Don, I thought you would be more thorough than that since RS
didn't
> publish any test procedures and charts like PW did. Very weak!
>
Radio Shack Corporation is a multi-billion dollar corporation that has
published the 5.5 dBi figure in tens of thousands of catalogs and on a major
e-commerce web site. You're the one challenging the figure, so it's up to
YOU to present evidence the figure in wrong. Neither Pacific Wireless not
Radio Shack needs to present any supporting evidence to anyone but the FTC
or a court of law in case you decide to sue them over their claim of 5.5
dBi. You haven't even presented any WEAK evidence, much less anything
credible!

>
> > > I will present it in a format
> > > that pleases both others and myself that will benefit from it. Thank
> > > you for your interest and support. Please check the site regularly as
I
> > > will be updating it shortly.
> > >
> > > Rita
> > >
> > Would that be "shortly" as in "earlier next week"?
> >
>
> It will be there when it is there. You see, Don, I have a life, career,
and
> responsibilities to tend to first.

You're backing away from your word to have it published "earlier next week".
That undermines what little credibility you had.

> Unlike you, I will be presenting this
> data to clarify my results and support my statement that the antenna
> provides no usable gain over stock. Since your motives are purely
directed
> at trying to win a pissing contest and not accepting factual data

What factual data? YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ANY!

> I know you will try to make feeble attempts at picking the
> data apart to support your weak argument.

I haven't any argument. I'm asking you to support your claim and you
haven't done that. You said you would publish results (and procedures, I
hope) of testing you claim to have done. You haven't done that. You
haven't offered any evidence that you possess or have ever possessed one of
these antennas. You claim to have done elaborate tests on the antennas, but
you never have offered any quantitative data regarding those tests. Talk
about weak! Yes, I'll scrutinize your data if you ever present any because
in my opinion you're lying about testing the antennas or having the antennas
tested. Long before you claimed to have one of these antennas you made it
clear you considered them to be over-priced garbage. Now you would have us
believe that you paid the price for the over-priced garbage and ran
extensive tests on the antennas, but refuse to give the results of those
tests or fully describe the test procedures? Here is your challenge Rita:
show us you're not lying! It's in your best interest because it sure looks
like you're lying.

> With this in mind, I feel it is in our best interest to have
> all bases covered and have every aspect covered. I'm sure you understand?
>
> Again, I would like to stay and chat with you, but we both know it is
> pointless and counterproductive. If you have any factual data about the
> antenna in question please feel free to post it as I won't waste time
> responding to feeble attempts to be sucked into one of your pissing
> contests. You see, this discussion with you really isn't important to me
> and I have nothing to gain or lose even if I'm proven right or wrong.
You
> know the url so please check it regularly to have all your questions
> answered.
>
>
>
> Rita

I've offered you the opportunity to support your assertions the Radio Shack
antenna "provides no usable gain over stock". I've challenged you to show
that you have the antennas and that your 'testing' is something more than
fabrications (lies) as they appear to be. You can cut and run or you can
support your assertions and present your evidence. What you have to gain is
your honor, and the best way to do that is to come clean.

Don W.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
<BS Snipped>

Rita - He is trolling and playing with you to see if you still believe
that you can fool anyone here.

You are dumber than a rock to keep responding because anyone with even a
minimal technical knowledge base knows that you are a phony!

You keep proving that you are too clueless to know that you are
clueless. If you ever get past the entry level electronic tech
abilities, you will realize this.