On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:23:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Good luck on that one.
Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Good luck on that one.

That was "good luck on disagreeing with Hecht" which is exactly
what you did and trimmed out the details in hopes nobody would
notice. I honestly don't know what is the most popular laser
wavelength. I had to rely on Hecht for that answer.

Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

I'm sure you are a glare expert and I'm just as sure that your
postings on glare are completely irrelevant, an obvious diversion
in your feeble attempt to change the subject away from what is
important. Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including
the boundary conditions? Why are you so accepting of an ideal
transmission line yet so unaccepting of an ideal thin-film?
--
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 =----

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:00:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including the boundary conditions?

You've forgotten so soon? This marks twice we've been through this
complaint - not including the actual posting that responds directly to
your statement. Your Netzheimer affliction can be aided by a visit to
the archive. However, you will have another forgetting opportunity
when I soon revisit those results posted some time ago. :-)