Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653963
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| References | <2cd19307-ba8d-4057-b68e-224f50eb2f25@googlegroups.com> <ab922e30f152d6eeeb3938a38f2258cd@dizum.com> <664b0ab7-c416-48e0-80be-9c4d2716f4ad@googlegroups.com> |
| Subject | Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". |
| Message-ID | <19dbe4f7df6c6978fbeb437d648083a9@dizum.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:41 +0100 |
| Newsgroups | alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics |
| Organization | dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:664b0ab7-c416-48e0-80be-9c4d2716f4ad@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> You're attempting to invert Coulomb's Law > You are just confused. Not at all, James. It is perfectly clear that you are attempting to hijack Coulomb's Law and invert it, twist it to fit your moronic little fabricated 'theory' in order that you can lend even an iota of credibility to your scientific fraudery. It's not working, James. > As I explained, if the force is neutralized Couloumb's Law is > inapplicable. To the extent that the force of polarity is activated > my theory is perfectly consistent with it. Wrong. You're turned Coulomb's Law on its head and claimed that the electrostatic attraction increases as the inverse square of distance, exactly the opposite of what Coulomb's Law says. Hence, you disagree 100% with Coulomb's Law, James. That's logic, deal with it. > It's not my fault that reality is complex and you are dumb. You're projecting again, James. >> to say electrostatic attraction increases as an inverse square of distance, >> James, which is exactly opposite to it specifically stating that >> electrostatic attraction *diminishes* by the inverse square of distance. > Nobody is saying this isn't true. It's just not applicable when > and to the degree the force has been neutralized. It's not neutralized, James. I've provided three references from researchers proving you wrong, and nearly 2000 peer-reviewed papers proving you wrong. You're just a psychotic halfwit desperately trying to justify your insanity. Nothing more. >>> As I explained, in my model the force associated with polarity >>> requires assymetry. >> Asymmetry diminishes electrostatic attraction, James. > According to my theory, which remains undisputed, It is disputed, James. By reality, by every single scientist who has done the carefully-controlled scientific empirical observational experimentation to determine that you're a moronic psychotic off his meds, and by thousands upon thousands of corroborating peer-reviewed papers. > asymmetry established the electrostatic attraction associated > with H2O polarity. Symmetry diminishes it. Wrong. 180 degrees out from reality. > If this concept isn't clear in your head then you may be too dumb > to understand my theory. Or the simpler and extremely likely explanation, James... you're a halfwitted uneducated psychotic. > Read my paper again. Watch my video entitled: convection versus plasma. > You don't have to agree with it. But it has to agree with reality, James. It doesn't. And your attempt to twist scientific fact to fit your delusional "theory" means you're scientifically dishonest, a scientific fraud. That's reality, James. Deal with it. > But you can't dispute something if you don't understand it. I certainly can. Your 'theory' leads you to deny convection, molar mass, molar volume, density, the Periodic Table of the Elements, electrostatic attraction's diminishing by the inverse square of distance, Coulomb's Law, the Standard Model, the mechanism for electron orbit... all while you blather on about a sentient sky tornado monster that can stretch its noodly appendages thousands of miles through the atmosphere to touch down tornadoes while evading detection, avoiding aircraft, only touching down at the rear portion of cumulonimbus clouds, avoiding touching down out of clear blue sky or other clouds, and somehow knowing not to touch down if the ground or water below is cooler than the air above... all while claiming all scientific knowledge over the past 250+ years is wrong as are all the scientists over those years... all while claiming there is a far-ranging scientific conspiracy... all while equating yourself to Einstein and Archimedes... all while claiming you're a 'physicist' because you once took an elective Basic Meteorology class... all while claiming only *you* have the "answer"... well, James... that's not a theory. That's the mad barking of a psychotic. > And expressions of confusion are not a dispute. There is no confusion on my part, James. You're barking mad. >> Thus you find yourself 180 degrees out from reality yet again. > Reality is complex. Your cognitive dissonance isn't an argument. No, you're 180 degrees out from reality, James. As has been proven. And you're trying to twist scientific fact to fit your moronic psychosis, meaning you're dishonest. You're a scientific fraud. >>> When symmetry is restored the force of polarity reduces to zero. >> Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality. > I explained my reasoning. No, you blathered out more of your psychosis. > If you are too slow to understand it that is not my problem. I understand perfectly well that you are psychotic, James. > The truth is you are confused and embarrassed to admit it. The confusion lies on your side, James, as is evidenced in your psychotic "theory" that has so many logic holes a Mack truck could be driven through it. >>> And, keep in mind, H bonds themselves achieve this symmetry. >> There is no symmetry in liquid water, James, > Liquid water is mostly (well over 80%) symmetric. Wrong. Soper explained this to you. You continue to deny reality. > This isn't disputed. Except by every single scientist studying the topic, and every single peer-reviewed study ever done, James. You're psychotic. > Gaseous (genuinely gaseous) H2O is completely asymmetric. But... but James, you claim latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist, therefore you *must* claim that H2O has *no* gaseous phase. Yet again we see you contradicting yourself. Do you not know what "latent heat of evaporation" means, Jim? > Again, this isn't disputed. True, except by you. You've claimed that because H bond strength increases with the inverse square of distance (in direct violation of Coulomb's Law), gaseous phase water *must* be more symmetrical than ice. Thus in your kooky world, ice is steam and steam is ice, and one must boil water to make ice, and freeze water to make steam. Because you're psychotic, James, and you're too uneducated to understand what you're blathering. > Ice and surface tension are in the middle, according to my theory. Wrong. Two completely different mechanisms, as has been explained to you by several people. Surface tension is a combinatorial result of lack of anticooperativity between water molecules, thereby allowing a greater number of H bonds because the interfacial water only has 180 degrees of bonding freedom, and the fact that ortho-H2O is preferentially evaporating because it has weaker (longer) H bonds, leaving behind the stronger (shorter) H-bonded para-H2O, which has properties close to that of ice. Conversely ice is a result of H bonds shortening (and thus covalent bonds lengthening, hence why water expands below 4C... didn't you know why water expands below 4C, Jim?), forming lattices due to the increased symmetry. > According to their theory--well, it's hard to say, they can't find > agreement. There is no disagreement, James. The mechanism by which water evaporates and condenses has been thoroughly researched, the mathematics has been worked out to model the behavior, and models have been created which reflect all but the "No Man's Land", a random property area of the temperature / pressure chart due to outside influences upon conversion between and thus varying ratios of para- and ortho-H2O, and for high-energy plasmizing events, and outlier high-energy events in water entailing plasmization. In fact, quantum mechanics now fully explains water evaporation and condensation to better than one part in ten million. You're just a psychotic halfwit blathering out your fabrication so you can pretend you're *not* insane. But you are, Jim. Fully-blown psychosis. > For reasons that make no sense at all, they envision ice as a lattice That's because it is, Jim. The thousands of studies I've provided and which you've run away from prove this. You're just a psychotic uneducated lackwit drooling out your retardation as an attempt at proving yourself not-insane, oblivious to the fact that you're proving the exact opposite. > (fully symmetric and highly ordered.) Beyond that confusion ensues. Wrong. The confusion lies within your disordered asymmetrical brain. Take your meds, Jim. > There is little agreement among the experts about the structure of > bulk water. Bulk water has no "structure", James. It's liquid. It can randomly form tetrahedral and icosahedral clusters at low temperatures which last on the order of picoseconds, which involve the para-H2O and its shorter (stronger) H bonds and the ortho-H2O and its longer (weaker) H bond forming separate short-lived clusters, that's it. > Here is a link that may introduce you to the continuing controversy: > http://www.danielcelton.com/2016/01/21/an-introduction-to-the-water-structure-problem/ This has been explained to you, James. Message-ID: <29d39821ebf137245ea1ea534e60d25e@dizum.com> ======================================================== <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html> It is thus possible that ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated. Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a strong dc electric field [2156]. ======================================================== Were you not aware that these "structures" are only an average of 2.8 angstroms, James? So the water molecules form "super-molecules" or clusters which slide over each other. At the surface, ortho-H2O is preferentially evaporated on a per-molecule basis, both because it has lower H bond strength than para-H2O, and because ripping an entire water cluster from the surface would require about 20 to 2000 times more thermal kinetic energy than the water has, dependent upon temperature and thus cluster size... even on a per-molecule basis it's about 5 times more energy than is necessary to evaporate a single molecule, which is why only a few chance random collisions per unit time which impart a higher than normal energy to the molecule cause evaporation or sublimation, and which is why temperature affects evaporation rate... in your kooky world, the colder the water got, the *quicker* it would evaporate because your H bonds would be weakening! This has all been researched now, James. The only unresolved areas are in "No Man's Land", a random property area of the temperature / pressure chart due to outside influences upon conversion between and thus varying ratios of para- and ortho-H2O, and for high-energy plasmizing events. > You, obviously, have no understanding about any of this. You're projecting, James. > I might just as well try to explain how an automatic transmission > works to my dog than to try to explain any of this to you. One cannot explain insanity to the sane, Jim. One can only try to justify their insanity, as you are attempting, and failing. >> which is why it is *liquid*. Soper told you this already... >> you remember Soper... > LOL. So, now you are putting word's in Soper's mouth. Quote him > directly and in context you nitwit. What about the following *don't* you understand, Jim? ===================================================== Electrons form clouds around the central nucleus as you know, but from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only two electrons can occupy each state of orbital angular momentum. Hence when two atoms or molecules approach one another closely, a large repulsive force, much larger than simple Coulomb forces, and which derives from the exclusion principle, develops which prevents the atoms from overlapping. If this did not happen, as you seem to imply, then matter would have collapsed long ago into a neutron star. (This same strong repulsive force also explains why controlled nuclear fusion has proved so difficult.) When further apart, away from the repulsive region, a weak attractive force develops between the atoms, also quantum mechanical in origin, namely the Fritz London dispersion force, which derives from the mutual polarization of the two electron clouds on neighbouring atoms. It is this force that holds all of matter together. Again if you don't believe me, go look at the structure of liquid argon. It has a repulsive region out to ~3 angstroms where no atoms occur, then a strong peak corresponding to the shell of nearest neighbours held there by the dispersion force. But of course it is a very dynamic structure in the case of the liquid with argon atoms constantly exchanging places with each other. ===================================================== No answer, Jim? Do you not understand the implications of the above reality, Jim? Perhaps because you're an uneducated boob with a raging case of paranoid schizophrenia, exacerbated by your Dunning-Kruger affliction? James? >> the legitimate researcher who's done the carefully-controlled >> experimentation > LOL. Desperation. Obviously, like the typical internet loon, > you are just talking out of your ass, as usual. You're projecting, James. > Present the data from the experiment, you fraud. I've already presented the nearly 2000 studies, James. Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html> > Go ahead. What are you waiting for? Yeah, James. Go ahead. What are you waiting for? You've got thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed studies from people far saner and smarter than you to refute. Get to it. > You are making an authoritative argument base on putting words in > the mouth of authorities. Liar. You're just too stupid to understand what Soper said. > Neither Soper nor Nilsson characterize water as anything but mostly > symmetric, you loon. Liar. Soper specifically told you water had no symmetry. ======================================================== Note also that even when a water molecule is fully bonded, it is still asymmetric, unlike your example of methane. This is because the OH intramolecular bond length is ~1A, whereas the O...H intermolecular hydrogen bond is 1.8A. Therefore a water molecule is not symmetrized by hydrogen bonding. - Soper ======================================================== You've been reduced to lying, James. You're a scientific fraud. > And they are largely at odds with each other on the details. Liar. You've been caught lying, everything you say from here on out will have to be substantiated with corroborable proof, you fraud. > (Saykally mostly sides with Soper.) But they all are confused. > They are feeling around in the dark. And they are unable to abandon > notions that should have been abandoned a long time ago, like this > notion that ice is a lattice. Oh, you mean reality. LOL > None of them have made my breakthrough that H2O polarity is > variable and that H bonds are the mechanism of this variability. You've made no "breakthrough", James. You've made no "discoveries". You've performed no experiments. You have no model. All you have is your retarded contrived fabricated mad ranting at odds with reality. > That is my discovery. (A big feature of this discovery is that it doesn't exist. LOL > allows us to construct a model in which there is no need for the > absurd notion that ice involves a lattice--a notion that has always > been conceptually problematic.) They assume polarity is constant, > thus they are confused and arguing with each other over details. > (All of this is way, way, over your head.) You're confused, James, as is evidenced by your having to dismiss large swaths of reality and scientific discovery, chalking up your moronic take on reality to a wide-ranging conspiracy theory. You're psychotic. Take your meds, Jim. >> to ascertain that you're a barking mad psychotic who has done *no* >> experimentation, pulling your wholly fabricated 'theory' straight >> from your ass. > So, your whole argument is, "I'm too dumb to follow, so you are wrong." No, my whole argument is, "You're too dumb to concoct a believable lie, so you are wrong." LOL > Isn't that, essentially, your whole argument? No, that's *your* argument... but you're psychotic, you deny reality. LOL >>> So, to the extent H bonds are completed there is no polarity and >>> no force. >> Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality. > You can't explain why. You are just a troll. Sure I can explain why. In fact, I already have. Look up thread for "Coulomb's Law", Jim. >>> So, Coulomb's Law is not being contradicted >> Yes, it is. > Explain how. You attempt to turn Coulomb's law on its head, to invert it to state that electrostatic attraction *increases* with the inverse square of distance. That's exactly opposite of what Coulomb's Law states, James. Hence you're attempting to twist scientific reality to fit your insanity, proof that you are psychotic and a scientific fraud. > Face it, until you looked it up on wikipedia a day ago you couldn't > describe it. You are not a physicist. You are not a physicist, James. You have the sum total of a single elective class in Basic Meteorology, and a raging paranoid schizophrenia, exacerbated by your Dunning-Kruger affliction, topped off with the fact that you're a moron. > I didn't have to look it up on wikipedia. No, you pulled it straight from your ass. Hence your getting it wrong. >> You've attempted to invert Coulomb's Law > No I haven't, dumbass. Yes, you have. You're so retarded you don't even know what Coulomb's Law states, you halfwit. >> as means of bolstering your discredited 'theory'. It's not working, James. > Explain how. Quote me directly. Read my paper again. Make an actual argument. > This isn't a hand holding service. I'm not going to make your argument for you. You're bleating because you know you're beaten, James. You're beaten because you're psychotic, uneducated and stupid, James. You cannot invert Coulomb's Law to say the exact opposite of what it states then claim it fits your insane "theory", that's scientific fraud, twisting reality to fit your "theory". You're a fraud, James. A moronic uneducated wholly-psychotic fraud. >>> because the force drops to zero as H bonds compete symmetry. But, >>> of course, at larger distances as polarity is reactivated Couloumbs >>> law does play a role. (And, of course, the charge associated with >>> polarity will not increase indefinitely.) >> Wrong. Diametrically opposed to reality. > You don't have an argument. Sure I do. My argument is that you're too fucking retarded to concoct a believable lie, hence your blathering on about a gigantic scientific conspiracy theory and attempting to turn every scientific concept upside down while k'laming it all agrees with your insanity. >>> So, this is complicated. But it is not a contradiction to Coulomb's Law. >> It's complicated because your broken brain is writhing like a worm on a hot >> plate in attempting to lend some credibility to your fabrication, slapping >> patches on your 'theory' to cover up those gaping logic holes, and you've >> proven you're willing to twist facts to do so. > You lose again. What's this, like the 5th, 6th, or 7th time. Do you > ever get sick of losing arguments? Except I'm winning, James. Reality always wins. >> That makes you a scientific fraud, James. >>> Science is complicated. You have to keep a cool head. If you become >>> emotional you lose you ability to explain what you don't understand. >> I understand it perfectly well, James. It is quite apparent, however, >> that you do not. > LOL. You are a confused nitwit who can only drop links to concepts he > barely understands. You're projecting, James. Except whereas the links I'm "dropping" reflect reality without having to contort them, you torture scientific fact, twisting it to fit your insanity, then proclaiming yourself smarter than every scientist in the past 250+ years, and that every scientific concept of that time period is wrong. But you're just an insane retard, James. >>> You become a fool. >> And you have become a fool. And a laughingstock. No response, James? You've proven you are a fool and a laughingstock. > LOL. Intellectual honesty is something that can't be taught. Exactly, hence your attempts to twist scientific reality to fit your insanity... a blatant case of scientific fraud. > It's funny how the experts are all arguing over details yet, and > despite the fact you just came across all of this as day ago, you > are sure they are right, but can't provide the slightest detail. Except I've torn your "theory" to shreds, James. Why can't you refute those gaping logic holes in your "theory", James? > It's not like you are fooling anybody worth fooling. No one is fooled by you, James. Everyone knows you are psychotic. Everyone is laughing at you. That is reality, James. Deal with it. -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James. You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change, thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby *dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James. You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma" if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your theory, James. According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow, that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level. How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James? Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer, Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim? If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to shreds, Jim? Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream, which would make air travel deadly. Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James? Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not? That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity, James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced phenomenon due to density differential, James? How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim? How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James? How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim? ============================================================ Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:31 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:41 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 15:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 09:37 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-22 10:38 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:40 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 04:57 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:47 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 06:46 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-24 19:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 06:52 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-25 18:08 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 07:29 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-26 17:10 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-28 18:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:19 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:49 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:09 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 20:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-30 02:46 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-29 18:11 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 05:31 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 11:12 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 11:40 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 11:44 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:19 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 13:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 13:24 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:21 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 13:22 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:31 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 15:33 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 16:10 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 16:52 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 17:01 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-30 15:04 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 17:53 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 17:45 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-30 19:24 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 19:45 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-31 03:30 +0800
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 15:36 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "Bill (not Jillians) DoW #5" <noemail@none.not> - 2016-03-30 13:19 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-30 13:20 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-30 17:18 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-30 17:55 +0000
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 11:55 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 05:45 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 21:58 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-30 22:01 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 22:13 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-31 07:04 +0100
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-30 23:52 -0700
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-31 18:35 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:56 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-31 13:04 -0400
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-31 04:17 -0600
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 07:25 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 09:05 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 10:16 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 18:28 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:27 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 20:20 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 19:53 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-07 08:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-08 08:54 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-09 07:11 +0200
Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-29 08:07 +0200
csiph-web