Lancer wrote:
I don't quite understand why this is so hard for

him to understand.

Im not the having the difficulties you imagine,,you expressed that by
introducing new terms and concepts to what I said with each post you
made,,,,first you invoked that the "relationship " doesn't change,,,I
never said it did,,yet, you are attempting to qualify what I said with
words I never used.
Again,,your mere acknowledgement that such a relationship exists
(between skip and splatter) confirms exactly what I originally said,
void of the terms you and Davie tried invoking.

If you have a station with a certain amount of

splatter on it. Move it a 1,000 miles away, you

can now hear him with skip.


If the station was local and you move it 1000 miles away and the skip
ain't running, you will hear nothing. Note that you are now resorting to
hypothetical situations with the word "if" and I used your example only
because you mentioned it.
Try this: The original disagreement was nothing of what you now are
speaking. Davie said skip had no affect on splatter, so this not only
automatically discounts any local splatter or bleed in the context of
the discussion, but you acknowledged a direct relationship between skip
and splatter, regardless how you wish to define it.


The components of his signal haven't

changed. Add another 100 stations with

splatter, and his original components of his

signal still haven't changed..





Im not the having difficulties,,you expressed that by introducing new
terms and concepts to what I said with each post you made,,,,first you
said the "relationship doesn't change",,,I never said it did,,,you're
beginning to enter terms I never used, and take issue with them
yourself..first it was how the "relationship" betweent the two didn't
change, now it's "components". How bizarre.