On 8 Mar, 20:25, wrote:
art wrote:
On 8 Mar, 18:45, wrote:
art wrote:

a huge pile of rambling nonsense

Out of curiosity, are you drunk, on drugs, suffering from the early
stages of dementia, a troll, or just an idiot?

snip rambling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Jim, Time will tell wether it is you or I.

You or I what?

Either way you have lots of
company on your side. AS YET NOBODY BUT NOBODY HAS PROVED BY ANALYSIS
AS INCORRECT.

Analysis of what as incorrect?

So why not be a hero and prove to all that the gaussian
antenna as I have described and explained for many, many months
possibly a year is an impossibility.

Post some equations that define a gaussian antenna. All I've seen
is rambling nonsense.

Or conversley explain how
computor programs cannot possibly react in a way I state,or conversley
explain to all why Art was in fact correct in that computor programs
can react as he states AND IN ADDITION he is correct in his analysis
of the connection between statics and
electro magnetics.

I haven't seen you post anything about the way computer programs react
that can be analyzed by a rational person.

Bear in mind that Roy was one of those who
ridicules the idea and thus the lemmings followed.

So, everyone is out of step except you? And what idea might that be?

Not one, not one of
those has provided any sort of technical analysis but continue to pile
on nonsense or twisting the events to suit their bluster.

I've noticed technical responses, but the only bluster I've seen is from
you.

But remember
sooner or later the real truth will dribble out and the naysayers will
slink away, or stand with ,I thought, I misread, it isn't in the
books,all is known about antennas e.t.c.

Is that supposed to mean something?

The best I make of it is that you believe you have the one, true "Truth",
whatever the hell that is.

Even if Americans refuse to acknoweledge the truth there is a whole
wide World that is listening and watching and will make their own
descisions as to whether to seek the truth, despite American scowls
and bluster to the contrary.

What do Americans have to do with it?

From what I've seen there are at least some Canadians, plus a few others
that think you are a gibbering idiot.

Again, you can't stop the advance of
science just with bluster or piles of sand, sooner or later one has to
decide what is the truth otherwise they are doomed to fall behind.

Raving nonsense.

Fall behind what?

What piles of sand?

No
one has provided a scientific response to what I state, nor is any one
willing to prove to himself what happens when the computor program is
actually tested and what should be done about it.

Maybe because you don't state anything, just ramble on, mostly incoherently.

I haven't the foggiest clue what your ramblings about computor (sic)
programs means.

Why put yourself in
the midst of such company who feel that derision is a good enough
response to the advance of science?

What company, those that have very patiently, and several times, explained
what Gauss is all about?

Your ramblings remind me of my mother-in-law as she slipped into
dementia.

If that is your problem, I am truely sorry for you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, I can't make you read what has been said so you can get upto
speed
IK ahve no wish to argue with you if you are not willing to give
effort.
Don't bother about being sorry for me
Art