Cecil:

I just consulted my tea leaves, they say you will be properly forgiven by
gentlemen, they don't indicate where to find the gentlemen at,
unfortuantly.

Also, I expect there is an "error factor" in the data I received from the
leaves today. Running out of tea leaves, I had to substitute marijuana leaves,
I improvised a method of using them by first smoking the leaves and then
reading their ashes.

Gawd I am hungry, got a sudden case of the munchies here! frown

John

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:20:57 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
It bears re-visiting to wrap this up, but I have no doubt it will make
any impression on your future claims.

My mistake was a semantic one. I didn't know the definition
of "glare" and used the word improperly. I appologized for
that mistake as soon as I realized it. Because of the
incorrect definition, I probably inadvertenly made some
false statements about "glare". If you replace the word
"glare" with "reflections" in all my postings, the claims
are still valid, given the boundary conditions. One semantic
mistake does not overturn the laws of physics.

Tomorrow we continue the brutal examination.

Since glare (defined properly) has nothing to do with
transmission lines, it is off topic for this thread.
This thread has always been about reflections. My
mistake was in thinking that "glare" and "reflections"
were synonyms.