Roy Lewallen wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"?

This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for
the sake of arguing.

Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they
seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where
they didn't.

On the contrary, Roy, it was a ***rhetorical*** question to
which Richard kindly responded. It is you who are disagreeing
with the EZNEC results, which are your own creation. I fully
agree with the EZNEC results posted below. So are you or EZNEC
correct? Both you and EZNEC be correct. Please see:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm and scroll down to the bottom.

EZNEC can indeed be trusted.

Glad to hear you say that, Roy. Does that imply that you cannot
be trusted? (Another rhetorical question) Reckon why the EZENC
results disagree with your personal postings on this newsgroup?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp