Cable Asylum: John, what are you talking about??? I really think you should read the posts. by John Escallier

##Why second guess? Just read the book.##

What second guessing are you talking about? I asked a simple question. And I repeat "did (rcrump) mean silver moving with the beam on or off". I keep looking that over, I still can't find the "criticism" in that question.

##We have a succession of criticisms from you of Hawksford, Hummel, etc, and now Forward,##

If you had actually read the posts, you would see that the only criticism's I've posted are regarding your attitudes toward others.

The fact that Hawksford may have inadvertantly misread a measured result (one I challenge anybody to make correctly) is not a criticism of him, it is a "possible" correction to an incredibly difficult measurement. The fact that you were unable to recognise his measurement error is also without meaning, I only backed into the error by chance in '97. The fact that you dangle Hummel endlessly, stating that it's the "new level of physics", but when you are challenged to answer a first semester level basic physics question regarding that theory, you state you don't understand it well, "I'm a circuit designer, not a physics professor", that is also without meaning. Most people don't know.

It is obvious to everyone who follows this asylum and can read english, that I have not criticized either of these people. Why you are making this up is beyond me.

And now you are stating that I have been critical of Forward (or Forwood)? Do yourself a favor...Re-read the entire string, top to bottom. Look for any comments by me regarding him, his book, his analysis, his pictures, his social life, his wife, his dog, his car....ANYTHING!!!! ANYTHING AT ALL. Your making it up as you go along, John. If this is how you consistently deal with others, it's no wonder you reject peer review.

##You just look for 'potential' problems##

No, I do not. But, you see criticisms where they don't exist. That will not stop me, or anybody else, from questioning errors. I do not live in fear that you will take offense to any inquery.

##then we would love to hear your criticisms. ##

No, that I do not believe that of you. You have shown time and time again your inability to accept criticism, even where none existed.

Unlike you, I will read an article such as Hawksford (which you were very nice to provide me, thank you), and if I am lucky enough to be able to spot a glaring error, I will question it.

THAT is what the real world of physics is about. Learning, questioning, communicating. Not what you are doing.

I did not lose sight of the fact that you have not questioned my statement that Hawksford may have measured with a test setup error. Why is that? Shoot the messenger? Ignore the message?

Your considerable experience and expertise would be better spent asking the question: Gee, is it possible it was an error in measurement technique? And if so, how do I measure it accurately. And, most importantly, what are the ramifications if it truly is an error, as that "erroneous" measurement anomoly matched the computer model of the skin effect so perfectly. Perhaps he had to iterate the model several times to match what was measured. Doesn't mean he's stupid, doesn't mean he's dishonest, may just mean he didn't catch a test anomoly. Period. And without people like you critically evaluating my hypothesis that it could be a test error, I will not have any feedback as to the correctness of my assertion. Please, question it, look it over for mistakes, post technical comments about it.

Don't spend time looking for ghosts in my posts, there aren't any. Spend time truly being open to the subjects being discussed. And actually thinking through and evaluating what is said... by me and by anyone else. Please.

Oh, and you pulling that reference (Forwood) rabbit out of your hat!!!
Well done; I still stand by my assertion that you are a good source of info and expertise. If only you would be nicer to people.

Regards, John