On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:10:25 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:
Richard C, you suggest we step up to the bench and perform your experiment that
will prove you are correct.

Hi Walt,

This is a misrepresentation of my work. I responded here that the
appearance of poor criticism suggests that my work is bulletproof
(among a spectrum of equal likelihoods) and my statement is a critique
of that shoddy work being offered as rebut to my data.

Further, I make no pretense that such an experiment will prove me
correct and I have offered on more than one occasion that someone with
care equal to mine could easily find data that refutes mine. I have
no illusions to being "correct" and have freely admitted that
everything I do contains error. However, I do, by training and
experience, exhibit those bounds of accuracy where others simply
caterwaul on that they need no lessons in the matter and further would
never "change their mind."

Now, if this appears to be backtracking, it is evident only to those
who will never attempt anything at the bench and have no capacity to
weigh their own sources of error - either of judgement or demonstrable
skill.

In conclusion, it is certainly an illusion to imagine that anything is
ever concluded. The best I can achieve is a confluence of thought
with one or several in educating rather exotic issues that lie outside
of the experience of many. There is nothing inherently common about
this, and is of interest to only those who aspire to accuracy, a very
limited audience.

The larger point that is germane to the whole of the audience is found
in the conduct of analysis, its support or its refutation. The
scientific community does not brook simple nay-saying and the shotgun
approach to cut-and-paste arguments offered as rebuttal. I have
described methods and results. My methods can be challenged, my
results can be shown irreproducible. I have offered tangible,
testable propositions, means, and results to which absolutely nothing
of equal merit has been put forward to provide a meaningful assault.
It is in that context that the appearance of a bulletproof
presentation has been suggested by me. :-)

The irony of my comments lies in the simple observation that this only
takes two resistors and a hank of line for one such test. The
magnitude of effort, as evidenced by those simple constraints suggests
that my critics are seriously skill impaired to offer honest testing.
I am content to stand above such midgets even if I have to stoop so as
to not make it so overwhelmingly and embarrassingly obvious.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC