I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message ...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication, not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously, you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.