Once again, Brian, you dive in with ad hominem remarks unsullied by any
technical observations ...

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 05/11/2014 15:26, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-05 14:42:04 +0000, gareth said:
"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
AFAIK radiation resistance is totally obedient to Ohm's law.
Radiation "resistance" changes with the frequency of the applied AC.
Which is why the rest of the statement you snipped says "at a given
frequency".

That is one of his tricks. He did something similar when I corrected him
re Maxwell and then went off on another tangent.

There is no trick in taking a statement at its face value and replying to
it.

You did not correct me with respect to Maxwell, in fact, you made a complete
fool of yourself by your assertion about a lack of differential results in
static
fields.


They both get rude and abusive when out witted technically, which is why
they are always rude and abusive.

The abusive rudeness comes from you, and you alone, as evidenced by this
post of
yours to which I am referring.

Why do you post so many ad hominem attacks that lack anything technical?


There is no point is continuing trying to educate such people, I suspect
they know they are wrong but just won't admit it.
Spike can be the same but tends to go in for silly nick picking,
pretending he is searching out details and being analytical. He is being
something but analytical is 7 letters too long.

Once again, Brian, despite your Ad Hominem protestations to the contrary,
the origination of personal abuse comes from you.


Fortunately not so distracted enough to forget to pick up a new quad band
Wouxan ;-)

The Childish Broadcaster (CBer) with his CB-style rig?