Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #541713 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-26 14:51 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-01 07:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:51 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 15:07 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 17:34 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-26 20:54 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 19:29 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-26 22:18 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 20:28 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-26 23:31 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:42 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-27 14:00 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:31 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-27 18:18 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 15:52 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-28 19:30 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:52 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 00:03 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-09 19:50 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 19:37 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 07:55 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 09:53 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 12:09 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:06 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 16:42 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:04 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 21:10 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:17 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 21:28 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 21:59 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:48 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:16 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 21:38 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 07:39 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 11:20 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:28 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:50 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 21:23 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:45 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:52 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:23 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 13:31 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:48 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:07 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 23:17 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 13:31 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 21:10 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:42 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 21:18 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:12 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:11 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:43 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:05 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:28 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:09 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:46 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:54 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 14:47 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 18:18 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 00:31 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 11:30 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 13:40 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 14:28 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:58 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 23:19 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:55 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 09:56 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 12:02 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 20:45 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:15 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 14:14 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:30 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 21:30 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:11 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:32 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 23:25 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:10 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:09 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 01:17 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 18:26 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Dan Elton <delton17@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:36 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 15:51 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-18 23:58 +0000
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 19:24 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 12:37 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:34 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:18 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:40 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:09 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 17:26 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:49 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:18 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 12:32 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:56 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:05 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:26 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:37 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:46 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:32 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:53 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:04 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:29 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:37 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:10 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:30 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:57 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:39 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 08:45 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:08 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:17 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:44 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 14:18 -0600
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:54 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:18 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:38 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:34 -0800
Re: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 07:07 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 11:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b2fcae1b-487d-47d8-a66c-8dcdc60a1c99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547626 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > meth is bad Then stop taking it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 18:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c1214a0c-5854-48a8-ad71-6822016e1bf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547635 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:48:59 AM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > > meth is bad > > Then stop taking it. kjikj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 23:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n81mrk$cac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547696 |
On 1/23/2016 8:07 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:48:59 AM UTC-8, Solving Tornadoes wrote: >> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> >>> meth is bad >> >> Then stop taking it. > > kjikj > either your are on drugs, booze, or a kid age 25 or less, or you are over 60, right ? unemployed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 13:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n80kgk$718$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547587 |
On 1/23/2016 12:52 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 12:46:27 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 1/21/2016 11:23 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:51:34 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>> the water in your brain is polarized, and sticks to one another in >>>> random fashion, if you had two electrodes on either side of your head, >>>> you could polarize your entire brain. >>> >>> You don't realize it, but you actually said something half-way intelligent. >>> >> >> Above your half for sure. >> >> What do you think an MRI does to your poor water molecule ? >> >> get some books and read up, then you could start off near the top, >> instead of the bottom like you are now. > > What did morons like you do before the internet, talk to you TV > esad troll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac013d60-988c-4911-953d-0056eccf627f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544584 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) > 2. your theory has been disapproved. > 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part > that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions > about your theory, as "evidence") Fresh Fish!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo We have a winner! I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark Fergerson, whichever one you are today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 21:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n71qst$1dur$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544596 |
On 1/11/2016 5:29 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) 2. your theory >> has been disapproved. 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that >> your theory has any part that works ? (other than calling your >> denial of answering any questions about your theory, as >> "evidence") > no response. HOWEVER !! James McGinn, Artem Baguinski and Claudius Denk the crank on YOUTUBE: celebrating the release of his his new idea on Soilent Potatoes, err... Bonded Hydrorated Polar Non-Polar Water....... https://youtu.be/ll0e9cPB08Y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae1f2cd4-3ad4-40ba-ab5a-da59c4bb8dac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544596 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:29:51 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > > 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) > > 2. your theory has been disapproved. > > 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part > > that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions > > about your theory, as "evidence") > > Fresh Fish!!! > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo > > We have a winner! > > I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark > Fergerson, whichever one you are today. I realize navigating Usenet has become difficult given that anonymous posters abound. Facebook and Twitter need them to make it appear as if they like more followers than there are termites under heaven with @#smartestphones. I always remind readers that there are over 7638 billion user ID handles on WWW while there exist only 7.638 billion people. Most of them poor and starving without any internet access. Ftr... Sergio, Mark, and I==Mahipal are three distinct individuals. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I am still here, in reading mode mostly.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 21:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee8a7b13-04d0-4bca-8c5f-bf82518c7918@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544671 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 7:42:43 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:29:51 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:43:05 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > > > > 1. there is no audience. (no one gives a rat's ass.) > > > 2. your theory has been disapproved. > > > 3. Can you provide any evidence at all that your theory has any part > > > that works ? (other than calling your denial of answering any questions > > > about your theory, as "evidence") > > > > Fresh Fish!!! > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo > > > > We have a winner! > > > > I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark > > Fergerson, whichever one you are today. > > I realize navigating Usenet has become difficult given that anonymous > posters abound. Facebook and Twitter need them to make it appear as if > they like more followers than there are termites under heaven with > @#smartestphones. I always remind readers that there are over 7638 > billion user ID handles on WWW while there exist only 7.638 billion > people. Most of them poor and starving without any internet access. > > Ftr... Sergio, Mark, and I==Mahipal are three distinct individuals. > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I am still here, in reading mode mostly.” I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73c53$1v7q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544681 |
On 1/11/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb. I gather that you pride yourself on your art of obloquy and contemptuous dismissal. I'm going to guess that's because you're very practiced on the receiving end. I'll just offer the opinion that you're not nearly as gifted as you think you are, and that it is hazardous to enter into a battle of wits unarmed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6cb2551b-c0d8-42df-8e90-4e40176873c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544800 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/11/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb. > > I gather that you pride yourself on your art of obloquy and contemptuous > dismissal. I know you didn't mean this as a compliment, but . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 12:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73hgi$aaa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544814 |
On 1/12/2016 12:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/11/2016 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> I guess it is just hard for me to believe that three people could be collectively this dumb. >> >> I gather that you pride yourself on your art of obloquy and contemptuous >> dismissal. > > I know you didn't mean this as a compliment, but . . . > Case in point. LOL. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b926cd1-153b-461f-b9bb-ef1a814614e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544823 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Case in point. LOL. 150 views.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73nm1$l5a$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544844 |
On 1/12/2016 2:05 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Case in point. LOL. > > 150 views. > And the television show featuring Honey Boo-Boo and her white trash mama had millions of REGULAR viewers. Go figger. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41e36ac0-788b-4bc6-923c-00da36b56cde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544427 |
trick question, perhaps you may find out why, perhaps not. I'm thinking, not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 10:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7r22l$16rs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544962 |
On 1/12/2016 8:09 PM, James McGinn wrote: > trick question, perhaps you may find out why, perhaps not. > > I'm thinking, not. > agree, except with your "thinking" part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5942f7b-17e9-4244-a473-f025a8b1467a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #541851 |
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > Try to answer just one question that proves your theory > (or adjunk) as your reputation is in question now; > > "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field > applied as without?" > > A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you > don't know, incomplete research simply means your > theory remains "Disapproved". It's amazing how seemingly effortless was your refutation of my hypothesis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7gumv$sda$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545694 |
On 1/15/2016 3:54 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> Try to answer just one question that proves your theory >> (or adjunk) as your reputation is in question now; >> >> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field >> applied as without?" >> >> A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you >> don't know, incomplete research simply means your >> theory remains "Disapproved". > > It's amazing how seemingly effortless was your > refutation of my hypothesis. > Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing body of knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some fast and loose verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a hat. *Disapproved*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6076206d-da31-4485-9526-6e240ec61e72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546114 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 12:48:38 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 1/15/2016 3:54 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > > >> Try to answer just one question that proves your theory > >> (or adjunk) as your reputation is in question now; > >> > >> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field > >> applied as without?" > >> > >> A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you > >> don't know, incomplete research simply means your > >> theory remains "Disapproved". > > > > It's amazing how seemingly effortless was your > > refutation of my hypothesis. > > > > Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing body of > knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some fast and loose > verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a hat. > > *Disapproved*. 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]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 00:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7i0sv$knl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546178 |
On 1/17/2016 8:18 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 12:48:38 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 1/15/2016 3:54 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try to answer just one question that proves your theory (or
>>>> adjunk) as your reputation is in question now;
>>>>
>>>> "Will water boil faster/slower/ with a 1kV/m field applied as
>>>> without?"
>>>> A simple YES or NO, will do, Or you could say you don't know,
>>>> incomplete research simply means your theory remains
>>>> "Disapproved".
>>>
>>> It's amazing how seemingly effortless was your refutation of my
>>> hypothesis.
>>>
>>
>> Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing
>> body of knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some
>> fast and loose verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a
>> hat.
>> *Disapproved*.
>
> 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.
>
try reading again for the first time;
>> Your theory has no evidence, no equations, no tie in to existing
>> body of knowledge, no testing, even questions avoided, just some
>> fast and loose verbiage from a non scientific dude looking into a
>> hat
your lame-o "theoryette" is 100% *Disapproved*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 11:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4753e911-8a18-45f3-81ab-492c53f6d2b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546199 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 10:32:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: Trolls will be trolls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web