On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:15:14 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Even Richard the Guru agreed that this could not be true.

Hi Dan,

I did?

Such is the seduction of confirmatory bias over the explicit answer to
an explicit question. I warned you about overly elaborate questions.

Imagine, many here wail over my exacting answers demanding something
shorter. The same crowd wails when I comply! Clearly their grief is
because either response plunges a stake into the corpse of logic they
have been trying to revive.

Not agreeing is NOT the same as disagreeing.

Does my status as Guru follow the ephemeral tide of celebrity for
supporting a cause? I could be called a fool for the same reason. I
willingly allow either to be attached to me (it is a conceit of
others, not mine; mine are far above that ordinary rank).

posters stay humble, even decimal point errors, should they
be so bold as to actually back up their statements with "math" (a black art
for many) ;-)

English is much more difficult than math. That is why this is not a
math problem. It isn't exactly an English problem, but both language
and math have been prostituted to serve a clumsy argument with loading
coils. Cecil is especially prone to tripping over pebbles in the road
and exclaiming they are intellectual boulders.

It is fun to watch, however. Tragedy viewed from a distance is called
comedy. Without it, lurkers would evaporate, discussion would wither,
and this group would flicker out.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC