On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:51:17 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

When you are exposed, what will you do then?

Probably take a leak. Oh! You must have something else in mind when
you use the word exposed. Do you have anything that would remove the
cloud from your obscure language?

Is your outrage merely the embarrassment of a failed suicide attempt
with your data wearing a dynamite vest to embrace Tom's? The last
step in making it a successful attempt is a painful admission that you
are both wrong! That conclusion is not so far away as to be false is
it? -faint heart n'er won fair argument- Pull the pin!

It's not like you have actually pointed to any specific datum that was
in error. It's not like you have provided us with any amplifying
details taken from your measurement that converges with Tom's. I've
seen no dispute about the numbers or the typical normalization of an
O'scope. My posting is exceptionally short and entirely based on your
own facts. Your objections would, of course, be solved with you
indicting your own evidence. Was it as bad as perjury? Did you
misread some settings? Were the current probes in the wrong place?
Was there the proximity of a large conductor that disturbed your
results? Did you plug-n-chug the wrong Xeroxed formula? What went
wrong? More importantly: why is it my fault?

Unfortunately, in the last 127 postings you have forever forsaken the
details of your measurement to oblivion and returned to the opiate of
synthetic solutions.

Noting the complete absence of technical substance to your
accusations, your leg must be getting wet by now. Is it raining down
your way? ;-)