On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:38:03 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:53:34 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any
sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find
a hidden treasure?

Hi Gene,

You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

Gee, I forgot.

I suppose 14 responses are pretty good evidence of how little you do
care.

If anybody actually does come up with an official definition, you'll
be latching onto it like a fly onto ****.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:51:55 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

Gee, I forgot.
If anybody actually does come up with an official definition, you'll
be latching onto it like a fly onto ****.

Hi Gene,

Suffering from www.Alzheimer's? You dropped the cue in the space of
one line. :-)

You really need to read Tom's comment. Your return to barnyard
epithets again reinforces the fulfilled cliché of the bumpkin. Our
comparison of credentials does serve a useful purpose, n'est pas?

My sleeve runneth over.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:29:54 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:51:55 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

Gee, I forgot.
If anybody actually does come up with an official definition, you'll
be latching onto it like a fly onto ****.

Hi Gene,

Suffering from www.Alzheimer's? You dropped the cue in the space of
one line. :-)

You really need to read Tom's comment.

It's good to see that you have enough integrity left not to claim that
the old NBS conversion factor which Tom found (which differs from the
conditional definition given by Dr. Barry Taylor of NIST in 1995) is
the *official* definition of a pound as a unit of force.

Even if you were deceitfully hoping that some of the others in this
thread would misinterpret that last-quoted statement that way.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/