Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.


Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.


And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.


Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)

I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.
If you want to get psychological about it, I think anyone could make
a good case that you're projecting your own failings onto other
people.
Like a few others on this newsgroup, I'm looking forward to
your piece in QEX. I have a theory, that people who develop theories of
energy - in your case, power - and then defend them as strongly and
hysterically, as you do, are closet perpetual motion enthusiasts.
It will be interesting to see whether or not my admittedly
crackpot (but not as crackpot as your ideas) theory is true in
your case.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH