On 1 Dec, 13:11, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:28:06 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:





On 1 Dec, 11:46, Richard Clark wrote:
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. .
.................................................. .........................-..

REMOVED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY.....NOT SURE
WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED

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. .
.................................................. .........................-.....

REMOVED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT GOT IN TO THIS DEBATE

Se Richard, two lines got the job done.Next time concentrate
on technical substance if you are aware of any

Hi Arthur,

You simply reposted my entire reply. Which two lines did you actually
read? (I won't comment on your sense of brevity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No,I enclosed all but two lines as not being relavent to the subject
at hand,
just a bunch of wailing.I was looking for substance.You have made a
lot of postings
on this thread but no substance provided.What is it that you desire
from this group?