On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:26:00 -0500, "William E. Sabin"
sabinw@mwci-news wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:


To date their best argument is you cannot possibly know
that value (for any of a variety of reasons, unrelated to simply
sitting down at the bench and measuring an actual value). In short,
institutionalized ignorance, embraced with a mystic missionary zeal,
is their crowing logic.

The problem lies in the difficulty of measuring or
calculating Zs, especially for signals that have
large variations in amplitude, such as SSB.

There is no institutionalized ignorance, just a
lot of skepticism regarding the reliability of the
analysis methods and the measurement methods.

Bill W0IYH


Hi Bill,

If the best that skeptics can offer to methods described and data
obtained are "it's not important" or "the time is not justified going
there;" then that is not a particularly high bar of excellence in
reasoning and remains thinly veiled institutionalized ignorance.

Or call it intellectual glaciation, the insurmountable obstacles plea
as argument defending naysaying is frayed and time worn. This is all
"special engineering olympics" caliber justification. Perhaps the
correspondents who enter into these debates should have their
handicaps posted somewhere so the odds makers could weigh the risks of
following such gold medal champions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC