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

Groups > sci.physics > #617415 > unrolled thread

Re: absurd bastardization of logic

Started byJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post2017-02-07 11:14 -0800
Last post2017-02-22 13:26 -0800
Articles 11 on this page of 31 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:14 -0800
    Re: absurd bastardization of logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 15:10 -0800
      Re: absurd bastardization of logic Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 18:59 -0600
      Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 21:54 -0800
        Re: absurd bastardization of logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:37 -0800
          Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 11:51 -0800
            Re: absurd bastardization of logic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:12 -0800
              Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 15:06 -0800
            Re: absurd bastardization of logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 13:45 -0800
              Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 15:05 -0800
                Re: absurd bastardization of logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 16:44 -0800
                  Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:40 -0800
                  Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:10 -0800
                surds of abnut noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:48 -0800
                  Re: surds of abnut Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-08 20:06 -0600
                  Re: surds of abnut James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:49 -0800
                    Re: surds of abnut noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:45 -0800
                      Re: surds of abnut noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:15 -0800
                Re: absurd bastardization of logic Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:29 -0800
                  Re: absurd bastardization of logic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:52 -0800
              Re: absurd bastardization of logic Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-08 17:16 -0600
                Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:21 -0800
                  Re: absurd bastardization of logic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:47 -0800
                    Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:59 -0800
                      Re: absurd bastardization of logic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:14 -0800
                        Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:24 -0800
                          p00f noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:40 -0800
      Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:48 -0800
        Re: absurd bastardization of logic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 08:55 -0800
      Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 15:31 -0800
        Re: absurd bastardization of logic James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:26 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#617643

FromSerg Io <invliad@invalid.com>
Date2017-02-08 17:16 -0600
Message-ID<o7g8rk$opd$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#617619
On 2/8/2017 3:45 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-8, James McGinn
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 10:38:02 PM UTC-8,
>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Jim wrote:

>>>> Like the fact that vapor is not an ideal gas?
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>
>> Excellent!
>>
>> So, you retract what you stated above?
>>
>> Answer the question you evasive twit.

> Go fuck yourself, Jim, you really don't have a clue, you dishonest
> snipper. You forgot to include my entire comment, so here it is
> again...
>
> "Exactly! If you say it is, show your work... and 'good luck with
> that'."
>
> Water vapor is a gas, as per its definition, and you can't prove
> otherwise, it is as simple as that. Put up your evidence and/or
> observations, or get the heck out of Dodge.
>

James McGinn retracted his water vapor myth ?

figures as he has no proof, only spoof.

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

#618961

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-16 12:21 -0800
Message-ID<5200726a-e529-42c1-acb7-f8259c5e51d6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#617643
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:16:11 PM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 3:45 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:51:15 AM UTC-8, James McGinn
> > wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 10:38:02 PM UTC-8,
> >> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Jim wrote:
> 
> >>>> Like the fact that vapor is not an ideal gas?
> >>>
> >>> Exactly!
> >>
> >> Excellent!
> >>
> >> So, you retract what you stated above?
> >>
> >> Answer the question you evasive twit.
> 
> > Go fuck yourself, Jim, you really don't have a clue, you dishonest
> > snipper. You forgot to include my entire comment, so here it is
> > again...
> >
> > "Exactly! If you say it is, show your work... and 'good luck with
> > that'."
> >
> > Water vapor is a gas, as per its definition, and you can't prove
> > otherwise, it is as simple as that. Put up your evidence and/or
> > observations, or get the heck out of Dodge.
> >
> 
> James McGinn retracted his water vapor myth ?
> 
> figures as he has no proof, only spoof.

You have no dispute.  Right?

What more do I need?

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

#618970

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-16 12:47 -0800
Message-ID<e01895ef-fabd-4261-afd7-1acb649678d2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#618961
sp00f is related to pr00fs,
you just have to make a little diagram

> What more do I need?

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

#618975

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-16 12:59 -0800
Message-ID<49cdff24-10c8-425a-a9c6-338a41d9292a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#618970
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:47:21 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> sp00f is related to pr00fs,
> you just have to make a little diagram
> 
> > What more do I need?

Where is your proof?

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

#619048

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-16 16:14 -0800
Message-ID<d2a4706e-3752-49d9-90f9-0296572a6dc3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#618975
pr00f is just the use of the words,
neccesity & sufficiency;
it is g00d to pr0ve either or b0th,
just in the sense of using those t00 words
in ordinary declaritive language ... thence,
you would not suck at the four subjects of mathematica

> Where is your proof?

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

#619063

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-16 17:24 -0800
Message-ID<f00a3718-6dbb-4917-a8c0-bbc51f3728c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#619048
U got nothing.

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:14:42 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> pr00f is just the use of the words,
> neccesity & sufficiency;
> it is g00d to pr0ve either or b0th,
> just in the sense of using those t00 words
> in ordinary declaritive language ... thence,
> you would not suck at the four subjects of mathematica
> 
> > Where is your proof?

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

#619145 — p00f

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-17 10:40 -0800
Subjectp00f
Message-ID<f25af455-6b84-4f3f-acb2-5276ab62f894@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#619063
as in, no demonstration whatsoever of a)
any thing,or b)
every thing

> U got nothing.
> > > Where is your proof?

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

#618315

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-12 08:48 -0800
Message-ID<535ec294-1621-4e2f-8ace-f24aa93d60ef@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#617458
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 3:10:52 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> Mainstream physics tells "us" that water vapor is an ideal gas, 
> so that fact is indeed viewed as being 'normal'. 

Is it normal to accept things on face value that other people tell you?

It is not normal to me. But, then, I'm a scientist.

> If you 
> claim otherwise, then that would be considered to be an 
> extraordinary claim, for which *YOU* would need to show 
> "us" your observations and/or repeatable experiments in 
> order to support your position. 

You just admitted, you simpleton, that your own 
understanding is based on hearsay, not empiricism.

> You know, the Scientific Method and all those other pesky rules...

You got nothing.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

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

#618316

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-12 08:55 -0800
Message-ID<465233f2-1c73-4560-93bc-2c21f552d612@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#618315
ah, blather is c00l

> You got nothing.
> 
> James McGinn / t0mAt0s jUgglIng thEm

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

#619202

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-17 15:31 -0800
Message-ID<2cc9fdbf-8876-42ed-9a90-186c012e4240@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#617458
Pnal:
1) Mainstream physics tells "us" that water vapor is an ideal gas, so that fact is indeed viewed as being 'normal'. 

James McGinn:
Who said this?  Who is "mainstream physics?"  Do you have a quote?  Reference? A name? Napkin notes? Anything? Or do we have no choice but to take your word for it, once again. (Do you ever get tired of fibbing all the time?)

2) If you claim otherwise, then that would be considered to be an extraordinary claim, for which *YOU* would need to show "us" your observations and/or repeatable experiments in order to support your position. 

That's fine.  Just as long as you continue to concede that the supposition that moist air is lighter than dry air has never been tested/measured/detected. Right? Fair enough?

Doy, duh, doy doy.

Dum, dee, dum dum.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

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

#619960

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2017-02-22 13:26 -0800
Message-ID<6e8f2b6e-6a08-4168-8d6b-8f988c7d6cce@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#619202
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Pnal:
> 1) Mainstream physics tells "us" that water vapor is an ideal gas, so that fact is indeed viewed as being 'normal'. 
> 
> James McGinn:
> Who said this?  Who is "mainstream physics?"  Do you have a quote?  Reference? A name? Napkin notes? Anything? Or do we have no choice but to take your word for it, once again. (Do you ever get tired of fibbing all the time?)
> 
> 2) If you claim otherwise, then that would be considered to be an extraordinary claim, for which *YOU* would need to show "us" your observations and/or repeatable experiments in order to support your position. 
> 
> That's fine.  Just as long as you continue to concede that the supposition that moist air is lighter than dry air has never been tested/measured/detected. Right? Fair enough?
> 
> Doy, duh, doy doy.
> 
> Dum, dee, dum dum.
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

You got nothing!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web