EMRFD Message Archive 3905

Message Date From Subject
3905 2009-12-22 20:28:57 Ashhar Farhan Method of Science - A Wiki entry
wes and others,

i completely understand that it gets a little embarrasing to have a
wikipedia entry in one's name. it is also not only the dead (brain
dead or otherwise) have entries on wikipedia (I am not talking elvis
here...).

the purpose is not at all to eulogize. but to create a sort of
biblography of your works. it is not available anywhere on the net.
this will help scholars of philosophy/history of science (yes, they
do exist, even now) in tracking down and cross referencing works. not
very different from the day-to-day work that regular students of such
fields do.

however, our collective engagement is with the very nature of a method
that we call 'science' that proceeds from hypothesis, experimentation
and proof. which is also the cornerstone of a work like EMRFD.

to that extent, works of amateurs like Goodman, Sabin, McCoy, Demaw,
Wes, Rhode and Rick have been seminal in the way our 'art' as
progressed (within our narrowly confined margins of this esoteric
business of 'the radio').

of them wes was the easiest to write about as the material was readily
available. i am trying to trawl through the QST back issues to track
down Doug's important articles too.

I understand that this has little bearing on our current discussions
here, but contemporary history of our field is interesting and
perspectives on solving recurrent problems are really illuminating.


- farhan

3906 2009-12-23 03:16:33 Sam Morgan Re: Method of Science - A Wiki entry
Ashhar Farhan wrote:
> wes and others,
>
> i completely understand that it gets a little embarrasing to have a
> wikipedia entry in one's name. it is also not only the dead (brain
> dead or otherwise) have entries on wikipedia (I am not talking elvis
> here...).
>
> the purpose is not at all to eulogize. but to create a sort of
> biblography of your works. it is not available anywhere on the net.
> this will help scholars of philosophy/history of science (yes, they
> do exist, even now) in tracking down and cross referencing works. not
> very different from the day-to-day work that regular students of such
> fields do.
>
> however, our collective engagement is with the very nature of a method
> that we call 'science' that proceeds from hypothesis, experimentation
> and proof. which is also the cornerstone of a work like EMRFD.
>
> to that extent, works of amateurs like Goodman, Sabin, McCoy, Demaw,
> Wes, Rhode and Rick have been seminal in the way our 'art' as
> progressed (within our narrowly confined margins of this esoteric
> business of 'the radio').
>
> of them wes was the easiest to write about as the material was readily
> available. i am trying to trawl through the QST back issues to track
> down Doug's important articles too.
>
> I understand that this has little bearing on our current discussions
> here, but contemporary history of our field is interesting and
> perspectives on solving recurrent problems are really illuminating.
>
>
I will have to place my vote with Farhan. I can't imagine how embarrassing it
may be for you Wes. That said, I still believe your works/efforts to be well
worth the Wikipedia entry. Why withhold from others the ability to research the
efforts that you have shared with us already?

Your humbleness is part of your charm my friend, but just Man up dude, ur famous
*NOW*, whither you like it or not. Merry Christmas


--
GB & 73
K5OAI
Sam Morgan
3910 2009-12-23 13:14:17 aa7hq@comcast.net Re: Method of Science - A Wiki entry
a suggestion for those who would honor wes::

make your measurements and use the numbers, just as he does!

ed, aa7hq


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]