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?

I didn't offer a "translation" of anybody else's words into something
they didn't say.

And I most certainly would NOT defend Roy Lewallen if he were wrong. He
would hate that... and in the same situation, so would I.


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.

I don't hate you in the slightest, Cecil. I just hate sloppy thinking.

This is not an ego thing. It's all about defending the bedrock of basic
scientific principles and logic. If Roy or I appear rigid and
unyielding, that's because neither of us is prepared to give way if it
means breaking those basic principles.

THE most basic principle of physical science is that every bit of true
knowledge is a piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle that fits together with
everything else that's true. If it doesn't fit in with every other
piece, then it ain't true.

The absolute fascination of science - and science-based engineering - is
in understanding *how* they fit... and very occasionally, finding a few
new small pieces.

Antennas and transmission lines are bloody difficult, and complex in
every sense, so it's sometimes hard to see how the pieces fit. But that
makes it MORE important to hold fast to the underlying knowledge that
they do fit... if we could but figure out how.

The wrong way is to say: "This big puzzle is too hard, so I'll make up
my own little patch over here, and who cares if it doesn't fit?" Well I
care! I also care if other people are being led astray by the loudest
voice or the most prolific poster.

But that principle is a hard taskmaster. It means that every notion has
to be tested to see if it fits. It means being prepared to throw away a
dozen pet theories before lunchtime, if they fail to fit into that big
jigsaw puzzle. It means that getting it right is vastly more important
than "winning" an argument, or being the last man still posting when a
thread dies out.


Roy and I agree on a lot of things - so much so, it must often seem like
collusion. But it isn't - it's just another result of those basic
underlying principles. They are exactly the same in Oxford as in Oregon,
so if each of us gets it right independently, then we're inevitably led
to the same conclusions.

Anybody can make mistakes; and if that happens, Roy has often said he
wants to be corrected. So do I. If he and I don't agree on something,
the most important thing to either of us is to understand why. Give
either of us a convincing argument - namely an argument that fits in
correctly with the rest of scientific knowledge - then we'll gladly
agree and be happier for it.

In contrast, I have lots of disagreements with Reg! But they are all
about judgement calls, such as the best methods to use, or what other
people do or don't need to be told. We approach those topics very
differently, and may never agree; but I don't recall ever having
fundamentally disagreed with Reg on basic principles, and don't ever
expect that to happen.


And finally: yes, I have met Roy Lewallen. When my vacation flight in
2000 passed through Portland, we naturally made it our business to take
a look at each other! What you see here is the same guy when you meet
him. I am pleased to count him as a friend; but more important than
friendship is his uncompromising intellectual honesty about trying to
deal only in true facts.


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.



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