Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #558740 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-02 16:19 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-03 05:20 +0000 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Jim Pennino: "It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition." Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:19 -0800
Re: Jim Pennino: "It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition." jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:57 +0000
Re: Jim Pennino: "It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition." James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 -0800
Re: Jim Pennino: "It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition." jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 05:20 +0000
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Jim Pennino: "It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition." |
| Message-ID | <d0860bc5-141f-425c-88ec-b905ef83f296@googlegroups.com> |
> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to > >> mean water (H2O) gas. > > > > I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that > > nobody has any proof. > > It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition. My point exactly!!!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8oekqc-ijp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558740 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to >> >> mean water (H2O) gas. >> > >> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that >> > nobody has any proof. >> >> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition. > > My point exactly!!! The only point you have made is that you understand neither the English language nor science. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f57e8e00-94c0-4117-97cb-32a922caccce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558759 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:01:23 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to > >> >> mean water (H2O) gas. > >> > > >> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that > >> > nobody has any proof. > >> > >> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition. > > > > My point exactly!!! > > The only point you have made is that you understand neither the English > language nor science. Uh, I realize that truth isn't determined by semantics, you imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 05:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e6ukqc-j6r.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #558802 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:01:23 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to >> >> >> mean water (H2O) gas. >> >> > >> >> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that >> >> > nobody has any proof. >> >> >> >> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition. >> > >> > My point exactly!!! >> >> The only point you have made is that you understand neither the English >> language nor science. > > Uh, I realize that truth isn't determined by semantics, you imbecile. Then why do you keep insisting that your arm waving semantics prove something, kook? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web