| Apparently you understand the arguments now as well as you did when you | provoked the comments from trader4.
I am for more able to carry on a discussion about the topic that you have tried to do. Instead of talking about something, where it might be possible to point out specific errors in your understanding, you prefer to just point at some document ... as if you understood that document. It may well be the case you don't understand what you point to. That may be related to why it does not seem to relate.
| "I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do | a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject.
I have no interest in what he posts. He might be right or wrong and I don't care. Since _you_ are the one who is making _vague_ asserts and misapplying contents of other documents (that the document writer cannot defend because he is not here, or refute your usage), then it is _your_ postings that I have some interest in. My goal is to see if you can actually post _in_ your _very_ own _words_ something that suggests you have any understanding of this topic at all. I'm quite patient, so if you want to wait until year 2012 to post anything sensible, that's fine by me.
| The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-in surge | protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually | destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole | house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as | other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and | can be part of an effective solution."
Your statement is conditional on belief in someone else whom I do not consider to be an expert.
At least you have started to tone down your assertion a bit and bring it in the scope of reality. Yes, plug-in surge protectors can have a role in surge protection, and can do some of that protection even if nothing else is there.
| And "I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics."
Physics is physics. If some specific thing I say is something you believe is not correct, then show me that _you_ understand it in a different way by saying what it is you believe I have stated in error, and state your belief of what is correct. I'm not interested in your reference to another document unless you can, for yourself, make a complete statement of exactly what it is you are arguing, so that the document is merely serving to support you (assuming you have not taken it out of context, which could happen if your really do not understand the topic).
For the sake of your own posting, start by assuming that everyone believes YOU are an expert. You could simply say someone is wrong. But that won't do any good for anyone. You should point out EXACTLY what is said wrong AND you should then state the CORRECT facts, all by yourself, just as if you were an expert. Then maybe we can figure out if your really understand it or not. Who knows, maybe people will start looking up to you as an expert if you can accomplish it.