Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #558042 > unrolled thread

James McGinn why he is that way

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-29 14:56 -0600
    Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:06 -0800
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:30 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-01 18:52 +0000
    Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:15 -0800
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:17 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:37 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:50 -0500
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 08:22 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:45 -0500
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:32 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:02 -0500
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 04:58 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:30 -0500
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:45 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:00 -0500
      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:23 -0800
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 11:37 -0600
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:45 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:17 -0600
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:57 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 13:14 -0600
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:53 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:08 -0600
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:14 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 14:29 -0600
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:41 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 16:14 -0600
                              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:43 -0800
                                Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 20:14 -0600
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 20:17 +0000
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:42 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 23:49 +0000
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:06 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:54 +0000
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 09:16 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0600
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 17:53 +0000
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:11 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0600
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 19:23 +0000
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:28 -0800
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:54 -0500
        Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:36 -0800
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:10 -0600
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:59 -0800
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 05:18 +0000
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 21:56 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 06:24 +0000
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:49 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:05 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:05 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:15 -0800
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 07:31 -0600
          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:54 -0800
            Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:45 -0800
              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:03 -0800
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:47 +0000
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:12 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:51 +0000
                      Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:05 -0800
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 +0000
                              Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 14:29 -0800
                                Re: James McGinn why he is that way jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:46 +0000
                        Re: James McGinn why he is that way edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-05 13:01 -0800
                          Re: James McGinn why he is that way James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 13:50 -0800
                            Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:28 -0600
                Re: James McGinn why he is that way "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:16 -0800
                  Re: James McGinn why he is that way Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:30 -0800
                    Re: James McGinn why he is that way Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-06 11:56 -0600

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#559608

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
>> standpoint of physics.
> 
> It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning

Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
point is you.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559611

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
> >> standpoint of physics.
> > 
> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
> 
> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
> point is you.

Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559625

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
>> >> standpoint of physics.
>> > 
>> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
>> 
>> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
>> point is you.
> 
> Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.

Is what a secret?

Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559632

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
> >> >> standpoint of physics.
> >> > 
> >> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
> >> 
> >> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
> >> point is you.
> > 
> > Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
> 
> Is what a secret?
> 
> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?

have you told anybody?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559662

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
>> >> >> standpoint of physics.
>> >> > 
>> >> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
>> >> 
>> >> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
>> >> point is you.
>> > 
>> > Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
>> 
>> Is what a secret?
>> 
>> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
> 
> have you told anybody?

Have I told anybody what?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559668

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
> >> >> >> standpoint of physics.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
> >> >> point is you.
> >> > 
> >> > Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
> >> 
> >> Is what a secret?
> >> 
> >> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
> > 
> > have you told anybody?
> 
> Have I told anybody what?

Your special secret.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559678

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:09 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> You haven't the slightest clue what "boiling point" means from the
>> >> >> >> standpoint of physics.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > It seems rather selfish of you to hide your special meaning
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Sorry kook boy, but the only one with a "special" definition of boiling
>> >> >> point is you.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
>> >> 
>> >> Is what a secret?
>> >> 
>> >> Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?
>> > 
>> > have you told anybody?
>> 
>> Have I told anybody what?
> 
> Your special secret.

No one on the planet other than you thinks there is any secret, which is
typical of the delusional.

Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559650

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> 
> Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.

Ah, now you are on the bait and switch method.
You won't define your terms, but argue that clearly
well defined terms are "secret".

You are a silly troll.  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559658

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:02:06 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> []
> > 
> > Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
> 
> Ah, now you are on the bait and switch method.
> You won't define your terms, but argue that clearly
> well defined terms are "secret".
> 
> You are a silly troll.  :)

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you 
are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559667

On 3/5/16 3:50 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:02:06 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
>> []
>>>
>>> Is it a secret?  Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.  I swear.
>>
>> Ah, now you are on the bait and switch method.
>> You won't define your terms, but argue that clearly
>> well defined terms are "secret".
>>
>> You are a silly troll.  :)
>
> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
> are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>


   James (who seems to be the frustrated one) fail to learn the basic
   physics of meteorology. I idea that you misunderstand are pretty
   simple:

   Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes, etc. results in a
   continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
   atmosphere.

   Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
   gas.

 > Water vapour (H2O molecules - gas)

 > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
 > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
 > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
 > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
 > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
 > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
 > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
 > lead to clouds.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559725

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:03:39 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:45:19 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> 
> >   That's not electricity, that's electrons *and ions*.
> 
> So, uh . . uh, . . . er . . . uh . . . electrons aren't electricity?

  Electrons are, ions aren't (except in batteries, capacitors, and piezoelectrics, which is irrelevant here).

> > > Lightning too.
> > 
> >   Nonsense.
> > 
> > > >   For that matter, what do you think "electricity" is?
> > > 
> > > Look it up. 
> 
> >   I've been playing and working with electrical and electronic devices for
> > slightly over five decades.
> 
> Batteries included?

  I don't need to look it up, smartass.

  I asked you what *you* think electricity is. Have you even though about it?

> >   Electricity can not "constantly flow in" from the sun to the Earth
> > because eventually the Earth would charge up so that other charges would
> > be repelled.
> 
> I think you are over thinking it.  

  It is clear that you are under thinking it rather than countering my objections scientifically.

> > > > >  Electricity is, for example, necessary to explain evaporation.
> > > > 
> > > >   Please explain why you believe that to be true.

  So, no response?

> > > > > Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.
>
> > > >   What do you think water vapor is?
> > > 
> > > Suspended microdroplets, not gas.
> > 
> >   So, you believe that individual molecules of water can't leave the
> > surface of liquid water below its boiling point, but clusters of them can?
> 
> Correct.  Moreover, being a physicist, I can precisely describe the mechanism
> underlying this behavior.

  Yet you can't state precisely the size or number of molecules of water per microdroplet.

>  Are you interested in reading something on that?  

  Write away.

> > > Irrelevant.
> > 
> >   It is exactly relevant
>
> Actually, it is irrelevant.

  You wrote:

>  I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.

  I showed that it *is* flexible. Do try to pay attention to what you write.

> unless, as Jim Pennino suggests, you mean something other than what everyone
> else on the planet means by "boiling point".
> 
> IDK.  It's irrelevant.  Prove otherwise.

  I did. The boiling point of water is flexible.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559726

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:17:00 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> > So, uh . . uh, . . . er . . . uh . . . electrons aren't electricity?
> 
>   Electrons are,

Oki doki


>   I asked you what *you* think electricity is.

Electrons.

> > >   Electricity can not "constantly flow in" from the sun to the Earth
> > > because eventually the Earth would charge up so that other charges would
> > > be repelled.
> > 
> > I think you are over thinking it.  
> 
>   It is clear that you are under thinking it rather than countering my objections scientifically.

I think you are just being argumentive for no good reason.

> > > > > >  Electricity is, for example, necessary to explain evaporation.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Please explain why you believe that to be true.
> 
>   So, no response?
> 
> > > > > > Only kooks think evaporation involves water turning to gaseous H2O.
> >
> > > > >   What do you think water vapor is?
> > > > 
> > > > Suspended microdroplets, not gas.
> > > 
> > >   So, you believe that individual molecules of water can't leave the
> > > surface of liquid water below its boiling point, but clusters of them can?
> > 
> > Correct.  Moreover, being a physicist, I can precisely describe the mechanism
> > underlying this behavior.
> 
>   Yet you can't state precisely the size or number of molecules of water per microdroplet.

Nobody can.

> 
> >  Are you interested in reading something on that?  
> 
>   Write away.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

> 
> > > > Irrelevant.
> > > 
> > >   It is exactly relevant
> >
> > Actually, it is irrelevant.
> 
>   You wrote:
> 
> >  I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.
> 
>   I showed that it *is* flexible.

> > IDK.  It's irrelevant.  Prove otherwise.
> 
>   I did. The boiling point of water is flexible.

Which is trivial unless you explain its relevance to the issue under discussion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#559790

On 3/5/2016 9:30 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:17:00 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>>> So, uh . . uh, . . . er . . . uh . . . electrons aren't electricity?
>>
>>    Electrons are,
>
> Oki doki
>
>
>>    I asked you what *you* think electricity is.
>
> Electrons.
>
>>>>    Electricity can not "constantly flow in" from the sun to the Earth
>>>> because eventually the Earth would charge up so that other charges would
>>>> be repelled.
>>>

>>>  Moreover, being a physicist, I can precisely describe the mechanism
>>> underlying this behavior.

liar.  Answer the Question you evasive Twit !

>>
>>    Yet you can't state precisely the size or number of molecules of water per microdroplet.
>
> Nobody can.
>
>>
>>>   Are you interested in reading something on that?
>>
>>    Write away.
>

>>
  Answer the Question you evasive Twit !
>>>>
>>>>    It is exactly relevant
>>>
>>> Actually, it is irrelevant.
>>
>>    You wrote:
>>
>>>   I suppose you wackjobs think the boiling point of H2O is flexible.
>>
>>    I showed that it *is* flexible.
>
>>> IDK.  It's relevant.  Prove otherwise.
>>
>>    I did. The boiling point of water is flexible.
>
> Which is trivial unless you explain its relevance to the issue under discussion ?
>

why are you so pissed off ?  Just because you lost the discussion, 
doesn't mean you are smart.  It only proves you are anal-retentive.

Answer the Question you evasive Twit !

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web