Cecil Moore wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego
thing, or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood
a single word.
And here's your chance to back up those elegant words.
Here's a repeat of Roy's example:
100v
source--x----1/2WL 50 ohm feedline----+--200 ohm load
50 ohm
A 50 ohm SWR meter measures 4:1 at point 'x'. Roy says:
"But there's a Z0 match at the source in my example."
What do you say?

Ian, by your lack of a response, it seems that your elegant
words were not put into practice.

I did indeed respond, and elegantly refused to "dance" with you.

Having never offered an opinion on that particular question, I am
certainly not going to be dragged into it now.


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

Richard Clark wrote:
Yes, Ian did miss an opportunity to call out the net for
you.

:-) Hopefully, someone *will* "call out the net for me"
if I am ever senile enough to demand refraction values
for a purely conceptual lossless reflection example.
--
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 =---

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:26:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:

Now let's couch that in terms of your failed Thin Film proposition:
do you judge yourself by the same standard of "lack of response?"

The logical resonse to a demand for including refraction in a
purely conceptual lossless laser reflection example is:

"Somebody Get The Net!!!"

So, when judging yourself to that same standard, this is your
response? Yes, Ian did miss an opportunity to call out the net for
you.

I don't think that opportunity will be missed again. No one expects
you to correct your errors, that would be rational.

It appears the both of you need a year of kindergarden and ego
management counseling.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:25:26 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
It appears the both of you need a year of kindergarden and ego
management counseling.

Hi Jim,

Feeling like a wallflower at the dance? Lighten up and you may get
more dates.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:25:26 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

It appears the both of you need a year of kindergarden and ego
management counseling.


Hi Jim,

Feeling like a wallflower at the dance?

More like a fly in the oinment......or a turkey in the straw, perhaps. ;-)

Lighten up and you may get
more dates.

They're not quite in season yet.

Jim:

Don't look at me, I got out of ego counseling... into a new gig these
days, just hung up my shingle:

"Unlicensed Practicing Gynecologist"

And my scale of payment is all follows:
.. over 300 lbs $1,000,000
.. 155 to 300 lbs $999,999
.. under 155 FREE!!!
.. I will pay tall thin red heads!!!

If you run into any potential clients--send 'em my way--only the ones
who were BORN female however... as a special for the month of June--I
will even help 'em study for the amateur exams...
evil heheheheeeee

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:25:26 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

It appears the both of you need a year of kindergarden and ego
management counseling.


Hi Jim,

Feeling like a wallflower at the dance?

More like a fly in the oinment......or a turkey in the straw, perhaps.
;-)

Lighten up and you may get
more dates.

They're not quite in season yet.