Richard Clark wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:14:47 -0700, "Chuck"
wrote:

The onus is upon you to show (resolve ignorance or
exhibit it in your own thinking - there are no third options) how your
claim is substantial - testimonial is insufficient.

Let me suggest, the onus is on you to
prove the claim is without substance

Hi Chuck,

That is about as funny as when Art appeared here proclaiming the
marvels of his new invention - and then telling us it was our
responsibility to prove his claims. Can you guess how many years ago
that was?

Hi Richard,

It is my opinion - and only an opinion -
that Art's antenna did achieve critical
coupling... and perhaps yet another
case where the model failed to agree
with empirical observations...

I'm afraid you are in line behind cfa claims, eh claims, fractal
claims and the notable efficiency per unit length claims.

But as you have more important things to do, one wonders why you spend
so much time with these trivial issues?

A few hours a month or less is 'much'
time? Surely you jest...

In any case, since you have no first-
hand experience with my design, all you
can offer is mere opinion - the antithesis
of fact.

Since my design can stand on its
established record, the onus is on you
to provide something of real substance
- say, empirical data - to support your
opinion.

73,
Chuck, WA7RAI


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC