Has to be said
atdavid"You hypothesis about penetration depth is based on one method of attentuation hence you make wrong assumptions about radio waves and water." It is so funny to see a user such as this who's entire technical and scientific education is confined to Wikipedia and the latest issue of Popular Science. |
atdavid"No discussion needed. You are publishing false information (noted many times) to shill for your products. Please stop!" It is not for you to limit, restrict, or discourage posters and contributors to this forum from sharing, expressing, or explaining they’re thoughts, observations, or opinions and regardless of you’re opinions or threat. You’re insistence that "no discussion needed" is without basis, justification, or validity in any sense because this is a forum expressly for discussion and if that does not interest you, the remedy is not to silence those seeking to contribute to those issues, topics, and components subject to the conversation. |
You have already been revealed here to be without solid understanding of the basic facts central to this discussion and we have clearly demonstrated beyond dispute that you’re confusion and misunderstandings originate from those gaps in you’re knowledge base there there is no need to repeat them they are here for all to read, digest, and understand. Most odd is your claim that "no discussion needed" and that you do not understand that the purpose of this forum is for discussion! What do you think the purpose is if not that! |
atdavid7"There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big" The problem is that when presented with a theory your usual and customary practice is to apply a fact or two derived from Wikipedia and then use that to dismiss, dispel, or "disprove" the concept that you cannot grasp, comprehend, or that conflicts with your belief system which is, again, based on Wikipedia it is all part of you're compelling need to be seen as authoritative, expert, and intellectual. |
atdavid"Obfuscation and irrelevance. That is not a great way to approach an argument." Actually what you are doing here does not really qualify as an "argument," which under the classic definition requires a premise that is then supported with facts and/or logic but what you do is issue pronouncements and proclamations that you demand be accepted at face value or otherwise you demand that other's produce evidence and research for you're benefit and at your direct instruction. So if there is an irrelevant obfuscator hear I think it has been demonstrated clearly just who that is, atdavid! |
atdavid"pull up your pants. No one wants to see that" You sound hurt and disturbed, very, very disturbed. |
audiozenology"The strengths of someone’s convictions are a poor indicator of the strength of their argument or position and only an indicator of the strength of their beliefs" yes I know for example you said this recently which shows you don’t know the difference between voltage and frequency and yet you insist that you are right that is why I encourage you to borrow or buy a basic textbook in electricity! audiozenology"The AC supply is a voltage at 60Hz. |
