"Reg Edwards" wrote..
Sorry Richard. I never refer to sources. Except perhaps Ohm.
There's no way of guaranteeing reliability. I work things out for
myself so you'll just have to take my word for it.

I have a remarkably small book library. Although I did buy a
second-hand copy of Terman in 1947 which I still occasionally browse
through when I'm running short of ideas. He's most comprehensive.
Which accounts for his continued popularity. But he's not God.
______________

I suspect that your statement above that you never refer to sources doesn't
mean that all of your considerable knowledge is the result of your original
investigations. Even your countryman Stephen Hawking credits his sources
when he writes of scientific topics.

Terman's (Brown's) statements about the elevation patterns of loaded
verticals have been proven empirically by MW radiators for 70 years or more.
There is nothing to argue about, and certainly no reason to take the word of
anyone not willing to show conclusively how this concept is invalid. One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:25:57 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

Hi OM,

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)

I don't suppose you could rummage up a concurring opinion from Terman
or Mendenhall (whoops, talk about one citation flushed down the
dumper)? Such hubris.

If you deigned to offer this privelage equally, there would be no
arguments, would there?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote:
One's word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you
and/or Richard Clark.

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)
__________________

Yes, you do presume. Your primary education should have provided you with
the concept of proving and supporting your work; I merely referred to it.

Experience here shows that you will claim whatever you want, and supply no
technical justification for it. That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:55:09 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

Hi OM,

I will concede the post of Beauty Queen to your overwhelming lead.
Tears will stain my pillow tonight. :-(

However much you may pine away for technical discussion, you balance
that with the relish to gust on with personalities. Clearly your
contest but no points for content nor style. Careful, there are
others eyeing that crown you seek.

I posed a question about pop music and antennas, both, given you have
abandoned the topic long ago. This in itself merely underlines how
inconsequential its outcome was. The vacuum of discussion along any
of those lines portends more banal gossip. I shouldn't await any
surprising development in your writing skills; but I'm an optimist and
look forward to that slight glimmer of talent that goes beyond the
swim suit competition.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
I will concede...
____

Let us all hope so.

RF