Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+poor\s+science\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+poor\s+science\?\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: dcckc@ncn.net (dcckc); Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:43:08 -0600; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_005D_01BF8633.64B1EF20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "This whole parasitic t; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00141.html (11,977 bytes)
2. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 07:39:54 -0500; You replied: There is a large difference between pointing out bad science and attacking the person. Most non-technical people have problems understanding the difference between technical discrediting; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00149.html (8,327 bytes)
3. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:12:32 -0700; Another tactic of critics has been to covertly kvetch to the moderator and the reflector owner to try to get me booted off the AMPS reflector/mailing-list. I have been booted twice and eventually re; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00152.html (7,985 bytes)
4. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (Lamb); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 07:37:59 -0800; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_003D_01BF8675.BAF3D1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, many amplifiers ar; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00158.html (22,977 bytes)
5. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: kc4slk@csrlink.net (Mike Sawyer); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:28:39 -0500; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0029_01BF8695.F42CF7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colin, I'm sorry but I; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00161.html (37,376 bytes)
6. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: Wt8r@aol.com (Wt8r@aol.com); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:52:52 EST; quite quite A physicist with any integrity and credibility would not counter someones contradictary argument with juvenile name calling as done above but with reasoned logic if he really does not int; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00198.html (9,731 bytes)
7. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:50:48 -0700; quite ? Inceed, Dave, indeed. 'Tis hard to believe that I have been booted off this reflector twice for not playing nice. . . ? Yet another personal attack.!. later, Dave -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.c; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00206.html (9,923 bytes)
8. [AMPS] poor science? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:29:12 -0600; When I was working on my 4-1000A amplifier a couple of years ago, I was convinced that Rich's theory was right. I got into fights with many on the reflector defending Rich. Yet when I read his litera; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00305.html (9,500 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]