Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

None of my statements has any meaning outside of the context in which
they are offered

Well, as this all thread started from one context:

everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match

being so encompassing as to enlarge beyond your capacity to explain,
we find ourselves with shortfalls of example to any context.

But that's not what I said, Richard. Everything within the
original context can be explained by achieving a conjugate
match but you deleted the context and therefore misquoted me.

If I say, "It is always daylight at 12 noon." and you quote
me as saying "It is always daylight ", you have turned my true
statement into a false statement which is not an ethical thing
to do.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:33:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If I say, "It is always daylight at 12 noon." and you quote
me as saying "It is always daylight ", you have turned my true
statement into a false statement which is not an ethical thing
to do.

Hi Cecil,

I don't know why you bother with discussion of ethics when you cannot
respond to the technical enquiry. This is your 12th entry in this
side thread that was NOT addressed to you and you have nothing to
offer but the squishy touchy problem of your perception of a moral
dilemma whose discussion is best left to a democrat running for
office.

And this silliness about "true statements" is absurd in its own right
and easily an example of a moral rigidity that brooks no contrary
evidence. Unlike you, I am fully aware of my errors, their source,
and their contribution or benign influence upon other discussion. You
have spent to much time in a binary world, a womb that has insulated
you from the reality of uneven edges and impure solutions. You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

Maybe so, but that xeroxed page is what you offered as a reference.
That's why I xeroxed it. Nothing on that page has changed since I
xeroxed it. It still talks about a "resonant rise of voltage" in
series resonant circuits, the most probable cause of a variation in
SWR and the very thing that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----