On 7 Jul, 07:27, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:52:24 -0700, art wrote:
Unfortuately
this newsgroup is not monitored which allows movement
from civil and scientific debate.

My, my, my, Arthur!

If a monitored forum for your amateur radio theories was that
IMPORTANT; then you would submit them to a monitored forum instead of
here. Given you find this is such a poor venue (oddly your choice of
forum), it follows that the poor quality of your work can only survive
here, doesn't it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
watch the debate on Eham that is held in gentlemany fashion
and with a proponent of knoweledge to which you aspire to
and have failed miserably7 Tom is only one of many that
have moved to E ham because of the discusting and rude behaviour
of you and many others. Experts see no reason to discuss radio
with such an ignoramous as you and leave. I am engaging him in debate
about radiation on a point by point scientific manner and to
achieve such a debate I have followed him to the E ham forum
so such a debate could occur. For the lemmings that follow you I
suggest you review the advisability of the continuance of your
choice of leader. Please excuse my absence from this thread
for a short while while I am away enjoying a debate regarding
ham radio with an expert in a areana of experts. Ofcourse I will
return to watch your writhing in agony.
Art Unwin KB9MZ........XG (uk)