On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:37:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I offered an experiment that might prove you right
... I suspect the above condition is representative of what you are
seeing in your measurements.

Hi Cecil,

Your memory of those measurements alternately gains clarity and fades
by the passage of each moment. I need no further examples, as flawed
or superlative as they may be, to support my thesis that stands by
simple resistive loads. Your gilding of the Lily and painting the
Rose is performed off the bench as a means to yet again force the
world into a speculation that your xeroxed page of Chipman responds
to. No further analysis is required, it has been performed and data
taken has demonstrated it.

If you choose to put forward a variant employing reactance, you could
at least step up to the bench to offer confirmatory or rejecting
evidence as I did. This is a simple example of offering a complete
analysis to peers for study and review. Some problems defy such
completeness, others defy analysis at the bench. This issue that I
have presented, and to which you toss in a variant are wholly germane
and within the capacity of any Ham to attempt to support or refute
through scientific method.

It is equally obvious that such methods and manners are an alien
concept competing with sneer review. As such, this disregard
constitutes the kulture of institutionalized ignorance that dominates
"debate."

Cecil, I seriously doubt your protestations of effusive gushing
I offered an experiment that might prove you right, Richard
in that of your crafted "might" (which certainly offers no prospect of
you actually performing any deed) is weighed with condescension. Such
passivity merely conforms to the existing kulture and hardly rises to
the effort and reportage I have already offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC