From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 07:48:09 +0100
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:19:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that News2020 wrote
(in <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about
'Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?', on Tue, 8 Oct 2002:
>Forgive my rudeness, but, can you keep it down. If you have no clue, at
>least you do not have to keep hammering at it.
No, your rudeness is not forgiven. Rudeness is never justified,
therefore never excused.
>Before I have made any conclusions, you have already exhausted your
You hope! I have plenty left.
>You are unable to explain any one of the odd items properly.
No. Your rudeness is due to the fact that I can explain all of them in
terms that don't feed your delusions. Whether you intend to be or not,
you are a troll. You are also in need of treatment for your condition.
If it goes on untreated, it will likely prove fatal. Do you have any
family who might not welcome you early demise?
> For example,
>this latest one -
>high energy means it can vibrate your entire house and also every house in
>barely audible means it is at the edge of the audible range (very low bass).
You used the ambiguous term 'barely audible'. Other claims you have made
indicate that you have no concept of how much energy is needed to
produce the effects you describe. This latest claim appeared to be of
the same nature. If you had made an unambiguous statement, it would not
have been misunderstood.
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!