Dave:
Your interaction with Cude on the DC power issue has been most illuminating in two ways: 1- since Cude has admitted that the estimate of output power was probably reasonable, that only leaves in question the input power. If this forum can help to eliminate possible, and REASONABLE, ways that input power could be faked, then it is well worth it! 2- by sticking to a single issue, and backing it up by irrefutable evidence generated not by you, a human, but by a well-known and proven software application (Spice), and asking JC to prove you wrong, he has shown himself to be the coward that he is. When he sees himself getting backed into a corner, he tries to cloud the issue or introduce other issues to deflect the reader. Good thing you were able to stay on point and not let him squirm out of it… So while I agree most of the forum’s interaction with JC is pretty much useless, your interaction has been quite illuminating and should continue… that is, *IF* he has the balls, and human decency, to take on the challenge and try to prove you wrong… -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 Robert, Please forgive me for responding to Cude and perhaps allowing his non sense to escape the filter. I will restrict that situation from this point forth. I feel badly for how I have contributed to this mess, but he was directly attacking me and I hated to just stand by and let his inputs escape rebuttal. My responses to Cude are hereby reduced to near zero since he offers little to the discussions. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Ellefson <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 > ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered > a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is > genuinely making a good contribution I’ll have nothing more to say on > this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much > of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people such as Cude directly. However, there is no reasonable means of filtering the large volume of useless responses to his postings. So, as when I read the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I suspect may have something to contribute through the noise. This is tedious and fundamentally error-prone. The result is that I typically delete en masse the majority of related discussions. I don't Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I do not care to read them. However, I can claim that his posts are in fact quite disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list. If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it. -Robert
