Perhaps soon enough you'll see that I bear no ill will towards you or your position, ghosty. I was asking for clarifications because I concede that it is possible that - rather than what you're saying having no merit - I am under some misunderstanding. Where credit is due I may or may not give it at my own discretion and in the amount I feel is sufficient to be generous while not enough to distract from the actual topic at hand. I do not recognize an obligation to give credit where it is due, but I do so sometimes because I want to, even in otherwise critical responses. A response being critical, however, is not a reason to display a recognition of merit. I do not acknowledge an obligation to give a "balanced" response for the sole sake of it being balanced, nor inherent virtue in so doing.
ghosty wrote: as to RFI. interference is always bad. its useless noise.
On this, for instance, I must correct myself. I was under the misconception that you were talking of a general interference of waves. Pretty much every source defines that as superposition. RFI, however, is a term in radio communication that refers specifically to interference with noisy and disruptive signals that prevent an intended wave to be received at sufficient fidelity to reconstruct the signal. Philosophically one might still argue as to whether or not that counts as "negative", but the extent to which resonance with the intended signal may still be possible would also be the extent to which the intended signal is not quite lost in the noise.
Anyway, yea, I was wrong there, my bad.
