Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:57:42 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:

Do you deny the photonic nature of radio waves?


Hi John,

This last question is standard CecilBaiting at which he is a master.

I've made a career in photonics, so you will have to go some distance
to start offering a case that comes remotely close to their cross
application. Barring that, why introduce concepts that don't advance
the topic? The following is hardly any clearer by clinging to poor
metaphors:

I guess the perceived quality of any given metaphor depends on your
mental model of the rest of the universe. Antennas and photons work
for me. If they don't work for you, I have no problem with that.

Remember, it is Cecil, not me, who demands agreement or eternal verbal
torture.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:40:59 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:
I guess the perceived quality of any given metaphor depends on your
mental model of the rest of the universe. Antennas and photons work
for me. If they don't work for you, I have no problem with that.

hi John,

It would seem that they "don't" work for you. I have no problem
shifting to a photonic dialog, but you have yet to emerge from a
rather muddy start.

Remember, it is Cecil, not me, who demands agreement or eternal verbal
torture.

I can torture with the best of them too. Choose your metaphors well
to avoid the embarrassment of Abu Graib.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Popelish wrote:
Remember, it is Cecil, not me, who demands agreement or eternal verbal
torture.

I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Remember, it is Cecil, not me, who demands agreement or eternal verbal
torture.


I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.

Resolution in who's mind?

I don't demand anything. I just read, occasionally throw out a
thought, and learn what I can. I accept that sometimes I will learn
something that is wrong, but I just keep trying to fit the pieces
together.

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.

Resolution in who's mind?

In mine, of course. I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.

Resolution in who's mind?

In mine, of course. I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.

Then you also probably believe that a character flaw is an absolute,
as are and evil.

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't demand agreement, John, just resolution.


Resolution in who's mind?


In mine, of course. I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.


Then you also probably believe that a character flaw is an absolute, as
are and evil.

I dropped a word during editing. That should have read:

Then you also probably believe that a character flaw is an absolute,
as are good and evil.

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I am obsessive-compulsive that way.
Sorry about that - it's probably a character flaw.

Then you also probably believe that a character flaw is an absolute, as
are (good) and evil.

"If it's not a 'one' or a 'zero', it's broke." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp