Cecil wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
... so you don't have to rely on rules of thumb that get you
into arguments like this.

Nice try at obfuscation, Tom, but I have previously identified my postings
as only rules of thumb. You attempted to hold my rules of thumb to
0.00000000003
accuracy. Doesn't that make you feel the least bit silly? That's stretching
things pretty far to try to prove that anyone who believes in reflected waves
is crazy. Have you figured out how standing waves can occur without the
existence
of reflected waves yet? I've been holding my breath for that proof you
promised.


I think you've got your Toms mixed up, Cecil. I haven't said anything about
0.000...003 accuracy. The rest of your post you'll have to take up with
Tom Bruhns, although I think your comments on whether or not I "believe
in" reflected waves is unmitigated balderdash.
I'm going to quit posting on this, Cecil. Your replies are
irrational and it's clear that the strain of dealing with two Toms at once
is too hard on your head.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH