Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,

If your only concern is the definition of "sloshing", then about 100,000
messages have been wasted.

My definition of "sloshing" is as I stated. I believe that Roy would
have the same definition. If your definition involves the speed of
water, then I have no idea why that topic would be relevant here.

I've used the term a few times in this forum, and in the context exactly
as you explained, clearly, in your previous posting. And as I also have
explained several times in this forum since I first used it to describe
energy in a line with infinite SWR in a posting in December 2002. But
you can fully expect to see the question asked again and again as it has
been over the intervening five years. This is a good example of the
reason I plonked Cecil some time ago.

I don't see Cecil's postings unless quoted by someone else, nor do I
consider it anything but a waste of time and cause of pointless
frustration to respond to him unless the answer would also potentially
benefit other readers. So no one should interpret my lack of response to
anything he directs to me as any sort of endorsement or agreement.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL