On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 Cecil - through Ian - wrote:

At least a few
posters are beginning to understand why W8JI's measurement was
invalid.

"A few posters" necessarily renders them public figures (not anonymous
nor protected by the secrecy of email) who can be disclosed in this
side thread.

Simply name one other than Cecil (which would make it two, a minimum
"few") who finds the measurement INVALID!

Not valid is quite different from invalid.

Of course, no names will be named ("I have here in my pocket a list of
communists known to be serving in the State Department!" is a notable
quote from the history of the McCarthy era.) who won't immediately
take Cecil to task for his pimping them ("it is what they meant to say
if they really believe......").

This validity is again an illustration of deliberate, poor language
usage. Some may have found the measurement not valid (not enough
information to render that positive verdict) but none by my search of
973 prior postings reveals any that have found it invalid (rejected
because it is false).

As for myself, Tom attaching his assertion to his measurement reading
makes it improbable, but not invalid (and note, the negation of
invalid does not render it valid). As I've already gone on record
with responding to Dan's questions, I reserve judgment of its validity
pending further information - not that I expect any. Seeing that
Cecil wholeheartedly has yet to reveal the how (or data to the same
precision) of his own counter experiment (which I have also gone on
record in asking for details) - I don't expect anything there either.

If Cecil is to stand by his same standards of judgment he applies to
Tom, Cecil's assertion has already been found to be invalid also.

But then this has for years been a beauty contest for Cecil and his
tests of validity are as appropriate as are tests for virginity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC