Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure
way and refuse to define it.

What's sauce for goose must be **** for the gander.

I try to stick to common usage of words. Sometimes I'm wrong,
as I was about "non-glare glass". When I discover a mistake,
I am quick to admit it, correct it, and move on. Others, incapable
of admitting mistakes, would simply have pleaded an esoteric
definition of "glare" in an obvious CYA move.

Some posters delight in uncommon usage of words at the expense
of the majority of readers. I won't name any names. :-)

Truly English is a dead language here. There is more effort expended
in trying to find the Rosetta stone for its interpretation than the
performance of bench work or simple computation.

Actually, there is a lot of effort expended in trying to under-
stand the words describing the previous bench work. Doing so
is simply an efficient use of time and effort.

For instance, I could expend a lot of time and effort duplicating
on the bench what has been reported on those two optics web pages.
But I am satisfied that they said what they meant and meant what
they said, i.e. wave cancellation (destructive interference) in
one direction causes a redistribution of the associated energy
(constructive interference) in another direction. Remembering that
Walter Maxwell said the same thing in "Reflections" a quarter of
a century ago is icing on the cake.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----