Hi Pete,
> I just read the Mosley ad again after setting it aside for a few days. If
> there were licenses for marketers like physicians, who ever cooked up this
> baby might be looking for a marketing malpractice lawyer!
I read the Mosley ad also. It certainly wasn't well thought out. It
was typical ad fluff without having technical ducks in a row..
> First they have given the negative test results 10 times the exposure that
> they previously had. Many of the guys who go to the antenna forum at
> Dayton are not Mosley prospects anyway. Many of their prospects might
> never have known about this stuff if they hadn't featured it in the ad!
Amen.
Second, they claim the test proved a "good thing". That's
nonsense. A test like this proves very little one way or another
when all the antennas are a few dB apart.
Until there is some verification with some of the unnecessary
variables removed from the test, no one will know for sure what the
results really are. Could be they are that bad, could be they are not.
I wouldn't bet either way.
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|