On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

As Art is presenting material that he has drawn time into Gauss' work
through his own invention exclusive of all other's, you have become
his touchstone as vouchsafing his claim. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 13, 6:33 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

.. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.


I would think this comment applied equally to Dave.


Derek

"Derek" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 6:33 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.


I would think this comment applied equally to Dave.


Derek

i like the post that points out the unnecessary t in the Gauss's law
equation... well done. sri i didn't state that myself, but i have had
better things to do than try to argue with art.

On Mar 14, 2:39 pm, "Dave" wrote:


i like the post that points out the unnecessary t in the Gauss's law
equation... well done. sri i didn't state that myself, but i have had
better things to do than try to argue with art.


As I remember it you were arguing with John.


Derek

"Derek" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 14, 2:39 pm, "Dave" wrote:


i like the post that points out the unnecessary t in the Gauss's law
equation... well done. sri i didn't state that myself, but i have had
better things to do than try to argue with art.


As I remember it you were arguing with John.


Derek

i was probably arguing with a couple of them... all the blabbering looks the
same after a while.