Jim Kelley wrote:
I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right. Cecil is very
good at getting the numbers right. I even agree with the solutions to
his irradiance equations. He and I disagree only on certain details of
the physical mechanism (though he seems to want to disagree with just
about anything I have to say).

I say, "I agree with you". You say, "No, you don't". So exactly
who is being disagreeable?

If I were to characterize most of the discussion I've had here, I would
say most of it has been spent addressing misunderstandings related to
the fundamental behavior of nature.

Nope, most misunderstandings are semantic. Most of our arguments
have been because you misunderstood what I was trying to say and
that unfortunate condition continues. You don't seem to possess
the normal human capacity to say, "Sorry, I misunderstood".
(I wonder if God is capable of misunderstanding?)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---