30 July 2016 Mahta Moghaddam	10:27 PM (12 hours ago)
to me, Christina, Giuseppe

Dear Dr. Catt,

We need your revisions before we can publish your article . This is our standard procedure. The requested revisions are rather minor, and involve some changes in wording. Please provide the changes as soon as possible, otherwise the publication of your letter will be further delayed to the next available issue, which will be December (and even then, we still need your revisions). If you disagree with any part of what is requested of you to change, you can also submit a rebuttal, but it has to be done formally and submitted to our online system, and will be evaluated by the editorial board. Again, this is just normal process and routine. 

Best regards,

Mahta Moghaddam

Mahta Moghaddam

Editor-in-Chief

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine

Professor of Electrical Engineering 

University of Southern California
3737 Watt Way, PHE 634
Los Angeles, CA 90089

@@@@@@@@@@

Dear Professor Moghaddam,

I take it you refer to these comments;

Associate Editor [Palosi] Comments to Author:

Dear Dr. Catt,

Concerning your letter to the Editor regarding a 2012 paper that appeared in this magazine, I encourage you to revise your letter by being more precise but brief on the point of discussion, that is your question, rather than on the fact that you had few and contradictory replies. Please also use standard terms or, rather, define the uncommon ones (like 'westerns' and 'southerns').

I must also ask you not to use terms that might be interpreted as demeaning of others. Those you quote in the fourth paragraph as referring to you were not.

I would be grateful if you could also add your full current affiliation in your signature.


Editor [Pelosi] Comments to Author:

I reserve the right to edit the final version of all submitted letters, without changing the substance of content, to ensure proper standards of communication and collegiality.

@@@@@@@@@@

“The requested revisions are rather minor, and involve some changes in wording.” Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Editor.

being more precise but brief on the point of discussion

rather than on the fact that you had few and contradictory replies.

The point of "The Catt Question", which Pieraccini and Selleri (P&S) renamed "Catt's Anomaly", was the fact that I had many, not few, contradictory replies. It is true that P&S falsely said it was the assertion that there was something wrong with classical theory, which the Associate Editor thinks is the point of discussion , but it is clear on page 1 of the book they cite, whose correct title is "The Catt Anomaly", that it was not. I quote page 1 of that book; "Perhaps more properly called 'The E-M Question', the Catt Anomaly is an elementary question about classical electromagnetism which experts refuse to answer in writing."; It is true that P&S wrongly say "Indeed, this is the aim of Catt: to crash the theory of electromagnetism". Now we see the reason for the title "Conflation". The IEEE does not permit someone who has wrong theories of his own to ask for instruction in classical theory, and complain if classical theory is incomplete or contradictory. Pelosi wants the reason for Catt's reply, "Conflation", to be removed from "Conflation", which is in its title.

Please also use standard terms or, rather, define the uncommon ones (like 'westerns' and 'southerns').

The book that P&S cite was published in 1993 and went on line decades ago. 

Page 2 says; "from the battery to the west". Page 6 says "could not come from the west, but came from the south.  Later, the 1993 book refers to "Westerners" and "Southerners". 20 years later, when you, Professor Moghaddam, said the terms were racist, I investigated and came to realise that those termed "Westerners" were actually from Italy in the south, and those termed "Southerners" lived in the west!

I must also ask you not to use terms that might be interpreted as demeaning of others. Those you quote in the fourth paragraph as referring to you were not.

The second sentence seems to refer to my being demeaned, but the first sentence seems to suggest I demean others. Pelosi did not reply when I asked him which was the fourth paragraph. However, the paragraph I assume he refers to does not demean beyond saying that P&S contradict Pepper. An article entitled "Conflation" has to explain what the real subject of the book cited ("The Catt Anomaly"), for the last 20 years called "The Catt Question" is.

I would be grateful if you could also add your full current affiliation in your signature.

I have no "current affiliation".

Ivor Catt