Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #558873 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-03 07:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-05 16:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:04 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:22 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 07:31 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:53 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:17 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:33 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:38 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:29 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:32 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:24 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:46 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:12 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:19 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-03 10:30 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:35 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:34 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:40 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 20:17 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:41 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 20:53 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:20 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:59 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:43 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:51 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:10 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:29 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 00:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:34 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:14 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:48 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:14 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:57 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 21:15 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:27 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:18 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:47 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:11 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:17 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:06 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 21:11 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:20 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 08:18 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:36 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:55 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:41 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 01:37 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 17:55 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 02:40 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-04 04:08 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:42 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:05 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:45 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 22:50 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 23:48 +0000
Re: Moist air Convection is a hoax, like Greenhouse effect. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:57 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c407115-6af8-4e8c-8d78-afd98aa0e84b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559035 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> > You fuckwits don't have an argument. > >> > >> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments. > > > > You got nothing. > > You mean other than hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible > experiments and thousands of text books You are a fucking blowhard that doesn't have a point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <csumqc-qo4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559040 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> > You fuckwits don't have an argument. >> >> >> >> Science is not an arguement, it is reproducible experiments. >> > >> > You got nothing. >> >> You mean other than hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible >> experiments and thousands of text books > > You are a fucking blowhard that doesn't have a point. The point is you are a delusional kook rejecting hundreds of years of repeatable and reproducible experiments and thousands of text books. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76557ed0-5988-45ba-902f-9f7843a7f5e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558994 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where > >> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So > >> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial > >> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial > >> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid. > >> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is > >> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial > >> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure. > > > > You can't even construct a coherent argument. > > If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start > with remedial English courses and a good dictionary. Well, then maybe you could explain how 0.34 PSI is relevant. Because I can't figure it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 04:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18enqc-9a6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559121 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> Yes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of partial pressure, where >> >> the different gases in a mixture behave independently of each other. So >> >> water is perfectly happy to be a gas at 20 C as long as its partial >> >> pressure is less than 0.34 psi. If you try to increase the partial >> >> pressure of water vapor above that. it will condense into liquid. >> >> Similarly, in a partial vacuum, the boiling point of water at 0.34 psi is >> >> 20 C, not 100 C. The boiling point of a liquid is when the partial >> >> pressure of the liquid (when it's a gas) equals the total pressure. >> > >> > You can't even construct a coherent argument. >> >> If you didn't find the above, coherent, then I would suggest you start >> with remedial English courses and a good dictionary. > > Well, then maybe you could explain how 0.34 PSI is relevant. Because > I can't figure it out. That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 21:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f62abae-9d2b-4937-9ea3-61ca24505a29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559140 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means. Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response will be very entertaining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbcqqc-uuf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559502 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means. > > Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what > the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response > will be very entertaining. Sure, I would be glad to enlighten you as to the definition of boiling point. The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and the liquid changes into a vapor. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 06:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b6bf2291-bf74-4c55-8604-6818158417ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559541 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means. > > > > Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what > > the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response > > will be very entertaining. > > Sure, I would be glad to enlighten you as to the definition of boiling > point. > > The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor > pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and > the liquid changes into a vapor. I don't see the words gas or gaseous in your definition. It that a mistake or is that intentional? You also haven't provided any specific examples. For you, can boiling take place at a range of temperatures given a specific pressure of atmosphere? Do you differentiate between boiling and evaporation? Did you graduate from high school. Are you special?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bqmrqc-7gk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559553 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:31:09 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> That is because you don't understand what the term boiling point means. >> > >> > Hmm. Maybe you can explain it to us. You can start by explaining what >> > the word "point" means to you. If nothing else I'm sure your response >> > will be very entertaining. >> >> Sure, I would be glad to enlighten you as to the definition of boiling >> point. >> >> The boiling point of a substance is the temperature at which the vapor >> pressure of the liquid equals the pressure surrounding the liquid and >> the liquid changes into a vapor. > > I don't see the words gas or gaseous in your definition. In physics, the word "vapor" means the same thing as "gas"; you are displaying your lack of physics knowledge. > It that a mistake or is that intentional? It is a result of being eductated and able to read a physics text. > You also haven't provided any specific examples. If one understands the physics, no specific example is required, but if you insist, the boiling point of 2-methylbutane is 27.7 C at 1 bar. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 08:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4sidnYRJq6Uid0fLnZ2dnUU7-UkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #559502 |
On 3/4/16 11:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: > ... start by explaining what the word "point" means ... As most kids learn in school, boiling point (a temperature of liquid at which boiling is initiated) is a function of pressure. For water, its boiling point is noticeably different in the mountains as compared to down at sea level. BTW--Are you a homeless person? -- 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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbaa8n$a6u$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #558988 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's >atmosphere, dumbass. I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws and how they would apply to water vapor in the atmosphere. My mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb8bbe2d-dfba-48d2-afaa-b5dca8d81ce8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559001 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: > > >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do > >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's > >atmosphere, dumbass. > > I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws Yes, I'm an expert. Your assertion is moronic. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqomqc-k34.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559004 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do >> >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's >> >atmosphere, dumbass. >> >> I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws > > Yes, I'm an expert. Your assertion is moronic. > > Go ahead, prove me wrong. He already did, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbai8t$kla$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #559004 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do >> >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's >> >atmosphere, dumbass. >> >> I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws >Yes, I'm an expert. Your assertion is moronic. >Go ahead, prove me wrong. I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <954c52f8-2b36-4108-85ea-aec82a810676@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559050 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> >You can't even construct a coherent argument. What's this got to do > >> >with the subject under discussion. What's this got to do with Earth's > >> >atmosphere, dumbass. > >> > >> I assumed you would be at least somewhat familiar with the gas laws > > >Yes, I'm an expert. Your assertion is moronic. > > >Go ahead, prove me wrong. > > I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. > > (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) Excellent. I look forward to you not responding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a3dcf4e-d0aa-4af0-b20c-919cbf2d9f45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559050 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. > > (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) Don't get mad at me, you're the one that brought .34 PSI into the argument. It's not my fault that I'm smart enough to realize it's irrelevant. Maybe science isn't your thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0g5nqc-de5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559069 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) > > Don't get mad at me, The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being challenged, everyone else is laughing. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3857238a-b1ed-4bf6-a9dc-f4c03ca059d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559086 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. > >> > >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) > > > > Don't get mad at me, > > The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being > challenged, everyone else is laughing. Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d59nqc-hq5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559089 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. >> >> >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) >> > >> > Don't get mad at me, >> >> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being >> challenged, everyone else is laughing. > > Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated? Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over as your nonsense is quite comical. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40db00e6-0d5c-45f5-a789-da2fd181f2ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #559106 |
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: > >> > > >> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. > >> >> > >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) > >> > > >> > Don't get mad at me, > >> > >> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being > >> challenged, everyone else is laughing. > > > > Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated? > > Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over > as your nonsense is quite comical. So, your mad because I don't believe what you believe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 04:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <abenqc-9a6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #559111 |
Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:44:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > >> >> >> I don't have to. You've already proved yourself wrong repeatedly. >> >> >> >> >> >> (Besides, I'm here mostly for the k00kwatching, not to prove anything) >> >> > >> >> > Don't get mad at me, >> >> >> >> The only one getting mad is you because your delusions are being >> >> challenged, everyone else is laughing. >> > >> > Do you think if you actually had a dispute you wouldn't be so frustrated? >> >> Science isn't a dispute and what in the world would I be frustrated over >> as your nonsense is quite comical. > > So, your mad because I don't believe what you believe? The only one mad is you because your delusions are being challenged with facts, everyone else is laughing at your nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web