[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:20:40 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:23:46 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <PPb-HD.A.CIG.QNwwCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jared's intemperate comments regarding the moderator were wrong. I hope he
realizes that and an apology is in order.
But Paul had a comment... Paul states, a common belief, that Jarad's
science is "pseudoscience"!!! I did hold Paul's post for a while,... but
Jarad "invited" comment... I guess I could "suppress" comments that did
not "verify it's validity"...... But Jarad seeks verification,...
which may not be true.... I know he "wants" it to be true.... But it may
not beeeee truuuue.......
The "flame" sine qua non is the excuse of "he invited it". Paul's ad
hominem attack did not address the validity or verification of any of
Jared's assertions. It was merely a personal flame attack.
I sort of have to allow Paul to present his point of view too.... since I
would never want to be accused of trying to "suppress
A curious argument. Why do you permit Paul to present his flame even after
admitting you held it for a while? Are only selected flames permitted on
this list? Please clarify.
...... If someone wants to tell us our coils will not work, when the
>obviously do, expect some "heat"...
Another very curious argument. Please identify who tells us our coils will
not work. I'm afraid "heat" was allowed to turn into a "flame" in this
Thanks for your moderation.