On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:36:56 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Then you should respond to that posting. The reason for this
suggestion is that you now continue to make speculative assertions
pegged against two names in a discussion where you are admittedly in
the dark.

Richard, why are you trying to hold me to a higher standard than to
which you hold yourself?

Hi Cecil,

So, is your interest in pursuing unrelated matters here, or posting to
the original technical discussion you can only guess at?

When I offered discussion employing Chipman's comments, I posted them
to those who showed interest, to those who showed they were versed
with the author, to those who showed inquiry into his credentials,
to those who showed ignorance to his specific limitations of requiring
the source Z to match the line and a host of other specifics all
offered in direct response unlike you. I can tell you who has a copy
available, who has shown interest in obtaining a copy, who has a copy
in transit from an Australian vendor, and who has asked about the
author as being a former instructor of theirs. And none of these
individuals has yet to respond to simple but necessary observations by
Chipman of the requirement of the Source Z. Do you join that throng?

If these low standards have the bar set to high for you....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC