If you think you can BS me and others with this posting then
you are wrong. I would expect this to come instead from a
For your benefit I will repeat my earlier statement: "So
far nobody, NOBODY, has presented sound empirical data that
proves the porcupine does or does not reduce the incidence
of lightning strikes."
You, Gary, have not presented any sound empirical data on
this subject. Throwing vague references around is like
'smoke and mirrors'. Whether I use a porcupine or do not
use one is irrelevant.
You have a problem.
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Lightning
I think it was Jim Lux that had an arms length list of
about that a day so or ago on lightning prevention with
I don't know what this has to do with WD4K? His post does
not mention them
or allude to them at all. And I don't know how my post got
on the same page?
My post concerns the fact that the FAA tested them at
several locations and
came to the conclusion that they did nothing other than
become a fire
That's one empirical source for you.
NASA is another.
If I remember right you spent some money on some of those
things and are
quite reluctant to bring yourself around to realizing that
maybe you have a
product that may not give you much in return for your
But if you are a believer that's ok too if it gives peace of
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Renwick [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:30 PM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Lightning
> So far nobody, NOBODY, has presented sound empirical data
> that proves the porcupine does or does not reduce the
> incidence of lightning strikes. Without that data, you
> nothing more than an opinion.
> At the bottom read the post from WD4K.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release
Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM
TowerTalk mailing list