>
>
>> I will let you judge for yourself on who was correct and who was not, but
>> as a result subsequent articles submitted by Rich to QST for publication
>> were rejected by the editors of QST, including his rebuttal to the
>> Technical Correspondence disputing his article.
>
>The rebuttal was rejected because it contained no technical
>information and included comments such as "people who clean
>toilets at Eimac can be called engineers".
>
>Reid Brandon, in the list Phil posted, is an Eimac engineer.
>
? I telephoned the Eimac personnel office and was told that Mr.
Brandon does not work for the Engineering Department. I clean the
toilets in my house. I am a sanitary engineer.
>I have a copy of the "rebuttal letter" if anyone questions the motives
>behind QST rejecting it.
>
? Early on, I sent Mr. Rauch a copy of the Rebuttal. He wrote me a -
now hotly denied - letter threatening to sue me and sue QST Magazine if
the Rebuttal was ever published.
>
later, Tom
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|