On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:41:41 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question.

Hi Reggie,

Reliability in questions? You've got the cart before the horse. If
"I have heard that" was an introduction to a statement, or development
of an idea; yes, certainly, a poor beginning. But as an introduction
to a question, it is apparent that the questioner is begging
contradiction or confirmation for "I have heard that."

In my particular instance, I supported the generality by offering a
new perspective and confirmation. Mike appreciated it, and that was
enough apparently as the remainder of discussion wandered the field
kicking over other stones.

One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Hardly uncommon, and successive correspondence removes any doubt or
resolves the enquiry. This is the point of posting afterall. The
only one posting threads I've seen are my own. ;-)

Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
justified the time and effort expended in checking.

Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
produced in the middle of WW2.

The utility of references is manifold. Some use them as rubber
crutches for their xeroxed theories. I've noted this on more than one
occasion when Optics is so thoroughly pimped to serve impoverished
notions.

However, even in this, and other instances, such citations offer the
general readership a bibliography and some insight into the depth of
discussion to be found in those references. When all I see are
endless lines of copied equations, I am not impressed. However, when
I see logical development proceeding out of the topic at hand, the
original author would bear closer examination.

I have several of the cited works mentioned here. Too many are as dry
as bone, and hardly useful beyond the examples they laboriously wade
through the math to cover. Others are indeed treasures of first
principles.

What this reduces to, is to lean heavily upon the cliche of "Old
Wives' Tales" to whitewash a thread is in itself reducing the
discussion to voyeurism and is neither an original nor useful insight.
Kelvin would hardly be impressed at such rhetoric that evades
specifically challenging loose references. The difference is
Atlantic, we are less impressed by the arch comments that typically
inhabit "a letter to the editors of the Times." If you care to polish
up your style, I would suggest researching the better pieces written
before the age of TV (or radio for that matter).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC