W5DXP wrote:

OK, I apologize for any and all angst that I have
caused you (or anyone else on this newsgroup). My
Dad and my best friend both died this year and I
have been in a foul angry mood for most of the time.

I accept your apollogy. I also lost my dad. He died last month and I
was at his side for his last days.

I would like for you and me to lay our personality
conflicts to rest, but based on your past actions and
reactions, I really don't think you are capable of
being a gentleman. I have a lot of friends with which
I differ on technical issues, but you are the only one
of them who has ever threatened me. Please prove me
wrong about my opinion of you.

Well, that didn't last very long. I have never threatened you. I don't
threaten people. Every one of my personal friends knows me as a truely
gentle man. I find it difficult to see how I could ever change your
opinion about anything.

As you may recall, I was virtually your only supporter on this newsgroup
when I joined this quest. I expressed to you my opion that your
approach, if correct, was simple, elegant, and beautiful! We seemed to
share that enthusiasm in this search for a detailed explanation of the
phenomenon. We shared skepticism about reflections from virtual shorts,
and agreed that reflections occur only at physical discontinuities. I
had discussions with several of the regulars here on the issue, lending
support to your point of view about the interference phenomenon. I very
much enjoyed that for once we had a common interest and point of view.
I've corresponded via email with Steve Best, Walter Maxwell, and others
on the issue all prior to having seen part 2 of your paper. After
reading part 2 though, I expressed to you that I had reservations about
the reversal in the direction of energy described in your paper. I
investigated further, and also asked a few of the professors at UC
Irvine to consider the problem. The bottom line turned out that there
is no physical or mathematical way for such a thing to occur - absent a
reflecting media. You wouldn't hear of it. At that point you saw me as
your adversary, and began treating me as such. Since then you've called
me delusional and impugned my intellegence at almost every opportunity.
And yet throughout this whole thing, I've had only one interest. It
is the very same one we both shared at the outset, to discover the
truth. I've conveyed that truth to you to the best of my ability.
And why do you think it is that, through all the insults I've continued
to try to convey it to you? It's because I would like to get back to
the point once again where you and I share a common viewpoint. That's
it. The angst on my part stems from the fact that someone whom I
respect, continually finds the need to insult me. Most of the time
you'll find I've refrained from commenting on the insults and have
simply deleted them. Over the last couple of days however, I spent some
time trying to illustrate what that looks like from my point of view.
And now we find ourselves here.

Of course I appologize for having caused you angst. It was never my
intention to cause angst! And it shouldn't have done so. It should
only have caused you to reconsider your point of view, and consider
another one. I honestly don't believe you have been able to do that -
for whatever reasons. Perhaps the case is not unlike that of a
scientist who has too much career invested in a particular theory. I
don't know. All I know is this is the only less than amicable
relationship I have in my life, and I truely wish it were amicable.

I have removed your
address from my email kill file.

I appreciate that courtesy. It's not something I ever thought was
necessary.

73, Jim AC6XG