🚀 go-pugleaf

 In Message-ID: <84056@netnews.upenn.edu> Matthew P Wiener writes:

>Ben Weiner sent me e-mail--that was his posting apparently.  I apologize
>for the implied accusations.  Anyway, you still don't know what you are
>talking about.
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

        Apology  accepted.   Your  assertion  that I don't know what I'm
       talking about , however,is not very constructive toward  the  end
       of  evaluating  the  merits  of  the  instantaneous communication
       device I described in my earlier posting.  Most  of  the  private
       E-Mail  I've  gotten  on the subject is favorable and indicates a
       general willingness to be further informed about  the  underlying
       principles.   There  has  been mail critical of the suggestion as
       well, but these folks at least have the courtesy to  state  thier
       doubts  in  something  besides  personal terms. They question the
       feasability of constructing a  detector  capable  of  registering
       extremely  minute  changes in antenna current, for example. I can
       respond to this kind of doubt.

        What  I  can't deal with is non-specific assertions that I don't
       know what  I'm  talking  about.   Are  you  able  to  talk  about
       electronic  components and electromagnetic principles? If you can
       then welcome to  the  discussion.  Feel  free  to  criticize, but
       be specific, O.K.?

       Jim Ostrowski

       -(..netcom!cruzio!snarfy!)