On 02/08/2010 05:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen > > It's clear that you are trying to re-characterize a mistaken understanding > on your part, in order to try to win an argument that can only be won if you > get to rephrase it your own terms.
Totally false. > > For instance: "CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first > law. We're > talking about second law." > > Wrong. We're talking about super-radiance, Stephen. I never mentioned the > second law, and I started the thread. You talked about upshifting the spectrum of a radiator. That is what I was responding to.
