On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:31:57 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark"
Admission indeed, this is a consistent strain of interpretation along
with the remaining embellishment that is unresponsive to the post.
_____________

So you say, but what I have written is a relevant commentary on the
applicablity of the content and conclusions of the BL&E paper. You have
offered nothing to disprove my comments. Nor can you disprove them, because
objectively stated reality will not support whatever attempt you might make.

Hi OM,

What you have written is called bloated prose. It is suitable for ad
copy and trade show handouts that tout insignificant advantages only
because there is nothing substantial to present.

Eight pages of discussion from the report covering the conductivity of
earth has been rendered a foot note by your diminution of attention.
Your absurd conclusion that ground conductivity had no bearing on the
outcome is glaring contradiction to the scope and purpose of the
entire enterprise. To reduce this focus of efficiency to copper loss
is a toothpick in the forest of effort by these men.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC