alt.engineering.electrical

"Anonymous." wrote in message news:fajee8$jao$1@ ...
>
> "Don Kelly" wrote in message
> news: $ @pd7urf1no...
>> "Anonymous." wrote in message
>> news:fahqgi$sp3$1@ ...
>>> In message which was
>>> published in these
>>> newsgroups on 13 Dec 2003, the following is asserted.....
>>> "The term e^(-jwt) isn't some magical time machine relating to
>>> "minus
>>> time", e^(-jwt) is simply another way of writing 1/(e^jwt)
>>> which
>>> is a value that decreases as t increasing. "
>>> Surely this is quite wrong?
>>> Surely e^(-jwt) is a cyclic phenomenon, the value, or modulus, of
>>> which remains absolutely constant and of the value unity?
>> It is wrong in the interpretation which appears to be based on real
>> numbers. You have it right but in light of your reaction to Salmon Egg's
>> comments, it seems that you really don't know why.
>
> Thank-you for your input, Don, but unfortunately you also have fallen from
> the reaction
> of my stalker, Nathan Hull, G7KUJ who posts as
> "+7IiMjEePDrUlHMcutxEQw.user. ", and who adopted the pseudonym
> of "Anonymous" immediately after I changed to Anonymous.
>
> He has also posted recently as...
>
> Ne Plus Ultra, (Adopted immediately after me)
> ne plus givre,
> Lazy-Arsed Class A,
> Gareth Tesla Evans, nee G8DXY,
> pope benedict,
> fr neil evans,
> WPC Pullman,
> Cool For Twats,
> Beanie Simon,
> Hypocrite,
> Evans is a Lying Useless Sack of Shit,
> Big K,
> "Gugliemo Sponger Evans",
> The G3VKI4KFK7KUJ Triumvirate of Mediocrity,
> Counsellor for Comportment,
> Dictator of Dogma,
> Anonymous (Adopted immediately after me)
>
>

No I haven't... but I am actually seriously thinking that you are posting
this stuff just so you can reply to it... it's the sort of drugged up,
drunken thing that a mentally challenged nutter like you would do. I'll
await an apology on the newsgroup for your false accusations. Thanks.