Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed
into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your
favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty
cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean. Reminds me of the upper
classmen at Texas A&M. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.

And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Cecil:

I should have mentioned the 11th Commandment and saved others...

11) Thou shalt not disagree with God.

.... hey, did you bring that bottle of wine with ya, it is hot down here?

Warmest regards,
John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean. Reminds me of the upper
classmen at Texas A&M. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.

And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.

Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest.
There ya' go again.
Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.


Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.


And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.


Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)

I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.
If you want to get psychological about it, I think anyone could make
a good case that you're projecting your own failings onto other
people.
Like a few others on this newsgroup, I'm looking forward to
your piece in QEX. I have a theory, that people who develop theories of
energy - in your case, power - and then defend them as strongly and
hysterically, as you do, are closet perpetual motion enthusiasts.
It will be interesting to see whether or not my admittedly
crackpot (but not as crackpot as your ideas) theory is true in
your case.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest.

There ya' go again.

Yep, it keeps coming back to that regarding closed minds
incapable thinking an original thought.

Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?

Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:39:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?
Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side.
Explains your outrageous gaffs. Did they deflect, reflect, or
diffract?

Tom Donaly wrote:
I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.

Typically biased, Tom. I have admitted I was wrong at a rate of
at least three to one compared to Roy. I feel sorry for you if you
agree with Roy that when a 50 ohm SWR meter reads 4:1, the system
is Z0-matched to 50 ohms. I feel sorry for you if you insist a lumped
circuit analysis is appropriate for a distributed network problem.
I feel sorry for you if you insist that EM waves can exist without
their associated ExH energy. I feel sorry for you if you deny that
interference plays any part in transmission line matching.

How about Roy's assertion that photonic energy "sloshes" back and
forth in a transmission line? I don't recall Einstein ever saying
such was even possible. Do you really believe that photonic energy
"sloshes" back and forth? If so, I've got some "Ocean Front Property
in Arizona" reserved especially for you.

You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the
laws of physics and reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry,
once in history was once too many.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:09:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the
laws of physics
C'mon, now, you couldn't even get diffraction working right and you
couldn't even compute the math on reflection. If we are good ol'
boys, that must make you the hayseed of physics.