| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 18, 4:57 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. In many replies to my postings, you tell me what I have said in the past without quoting anything I actually said. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you demand of me? I will honor your standard when you begin to pay it more than lip service. Cecil - Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. Thanks, Jim, AC6XG |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Kelley wrote:
Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jun 21, 5:45 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. Sure you will. :-) Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) 73, ac6xg |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:45 am, Cecil Moore wrote: I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. Sure you will. :-) The only computer to which I have present access blocks Google Group access so bear with me on that one. Or you could simply prove it to yourself. It would be during the time when you were asserting, "No work = no power", while the IEEE Dictionary requires no such limitations on the definition of "power". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cecil Moore wrote: The only computer to which I have present access blocks Google Group access so bear with me on that one. You know what they say about excuses, Cecil. :-) Will you never tire of calling people liars? 73, ac6xg |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Kelley wrote:
Will you never tire of calling people liars? Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. A few postings ago, you used 23 words to call me a liar - not a very efficient use of words. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Will you never tire of calling people liars? Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. The frequency of repetition begins to suggest a big lie. A few postings ago, you used 23 words to call me a liar - not a very efficient use of words. You are able to count the words, yet you neglect once again to include them as a reference. Apparently that wouldn't have suited your purpose. It never does. I'm certain that my comments were along the lines of a correction to one of your frequent mis-statements regarding something that I "said". I suggest that, rather than reading so much between the lines, supplementing and substituting your own words and ideas, you should give more regard to the explicit meaning conveyed by the words provided by the author. ac6xg |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Kelley wrote:
Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) Please follow your own advice and quote what I actually said instead of making it up as you go along. As I remember, here was my response - a quote from my years-old magazine article: "The term "power flow" has been avoided in favor of "energy flow". Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit time through a plane." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Kelley wrote:
Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) I remember that one, Jim. It was when you and I sided together against the IEEE Dictionary. The IEEE Dictionary says that power propagates. You and I agreed that power doesn't propagate. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cecil Moore wrote: I remember that one, Jim. It was when you and I sided together against the IEEE Dictionary. The IEEE Dictionary says that power propagates. You and I agreed that power doesn't propagate. I don't recall you saying that you agreed with me about that, or anything else. The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote here, too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly maligned. ac6xg |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
| FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
| FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
| FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
| WA3MOJ crahses and Burns!!! | CB | |||