On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:14:56 -0500, Jack Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:31:35 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The original argument was over whether a
75m bugcatcher coil, containing distributed resistance, inductance, and
capacitance, actually possesses those same characteristics in reality.

I apologize if I've misunderstood where this topic is at; it's been
very difficult to follow as it drifts back and forth.

Hi Jack,

No apology is required from you. This thread has a very specific
question from a single correspondent (Roy). The substituted topic
that you find confusion with is a common form of (Cecil's) not being
responsive to the topic by deflection to other issues. The comedy
consists of the "gentlemen's agreement" to not cut this short when
this occurs.

But such is the gamesmanship that is being conducted, from the start.
The withholding of data to embarrass correspondents is not uncommon.
Lord knows how many I've embarrassed with simpler topics (the current
crew being only a subset). However, I generally restrain my
participation such that those threads are smaller. Otherwise the
posting of:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:26:32 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote:

Otherwise, the
thread would have been about two postings long.
which totals 75 (soon to be 76 with this), and for which Roy has
contributed very little new details, nor any data across the majority
of 27 of his own (appealing for inductor values to force the issue
would have made the thread three postings long, c'mon now) obviously
reveals that entertainment is being served. OK, OK, for the sake of
the mythical lurker, we can all give a wink and a nod that it is
"edutainment."

I hope none expect an Emmy for these sweeps. [I would like to thank
all my books and their authors; and especially the large supporting
cast, all the little people, for making this possible.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC