On 8/29/2010 8:47 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:26:50 -0500, wrote:

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Sorry, I meant "in".

As discontinuities are abhorred in nature, then "in" (in reality)
negates the sophist's intellectualized "in." Fields (in reality) do
reside with"in" a conductor.

The problem is how far "in" not if "in."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You are so picky. Can't you allow abbreviation at all?

tom
K0TAR