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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #653521

Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:958272e0-9c16-4027-8ca7-053368a4684b@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe drop-kicked a moronic halfwit. Again:

>> Jim, it was a link that *you* *provided* which provided the
>> means by which your entire premise is destroyed.

> When I provide a link it's for informational purposes.  It doesn't
> mean that I agree with it verbatim.  

You're backpedaling, James. You provided a link which you purported
supported your "theory", and with which I destroyed yet another huge
chunk of your retarded "theory", and now you're backpedaling.

> Also, keep in mind, as explicated in my paper, I don't buy into
> the standard model.

Of course you don't. You're a delusional moron who denies all of known
science so you can proclaim yourself smarter than every scientist in
the past 250+ years, as you blather out fairy tale hypotheticals with
no basis in reality.

So now you're denying the Standard Model, which means you deny all of
particle physics concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong
nuclear forces. And that means they must be "in" on your kooky
"conspiracy", right, James?

Didn't you hear, James? The discovery of the top quark in 1995, the
tau neutrino in 2000 and the Higgs boson in 2012 cements the Standard
Model as reality. Deny it to the derisive laughter of sane people
everywhere.

Hey, you should file a class-action kooksoot against electrons and
photons... they're obviously covertly plotting to thwart your attempt
to remodel all of reality. Moron. LOL

> Specifically, in my model there is an inverse relationship
> between proximity and bond strength, which Nilsson et al
> DO NOT assume.  

Moron says bond strength becomes *stronger* with increasing distance!

Do you not understand the concept of bond enthalpy, James? Otherwise
known as bond energy. Do you not understand that a hydrogen bond is a
dipole-dipole attraction due to differential electronegativity?

According to you, the scenario would go something like this:
-------------------------------
A water molecule has closely-bonded intermolecular H bonds, thus the
bond link is low. Thus when energy hits it, the bond would stretch,
gain in strength and thus capture that energy, not allowing the bond
to ever break because the bond just keeps getting stronger and
stronger with distance.
-------------------------------

But you fail to understand that a H bond is an *electrostatic*
attraction between polar groups due to *electromagnetic* interaction.

Does electrostatic attraction increase with distance, James?

No, it does not. In fact, it decreases in strength by the inverse
square of distance, which is codified in Coulomb's Law.

In water, there is the additional consideration that if a H bond is
broken, the diametrically opposed covalent bond will strengthen
(shorten) until another H bond can be created.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==================================================
There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond strengths;
the stronger is the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H covalent
bond, and the shorter the O---O distance [1928] (see right).
Interestingly, this means that the O-H covalent part of the hydrogen
bonds gets shorter as the temperature of the water increases.

The dependency on bond length is very important and has been shown to
exponentially decay with distance.
==================================================

That the H bond is an electrostatic attraction is the reason why it's
directional. Didn't you know that, James?

Oh look, James... yet again Martin Chaplin kicks your stupid ass by
*empirically* *measuring* hydrogen bond strength versus bond length:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf
==================================================
If the hydrogen bond is close to straight (i.e. 180°), the hydrogen
bond strength depends almost linearly on its length with shorter
length giving rise to stronger hydrogen bonding. As the hydrogen bond
length of water increases with temperature increase but decreases with
pressure increase, hydrogen bond strength also depends almost
linearly, outside extreme values, on the temperature and pressure
(Dougherty, 1998).
==================================================

And that's not to mention that Anders Nilsson's experiment
(https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156), that you were touting as
supportive of your kooky "theory" and with which I utterly destroyed
your moronic "theory", directly observed a result of H bond strength,
James... the more strongly-bound the H bonds in each phase, the weaker
the photons emitted. And we know that ice has closely-bound H bonds,
James, which is why the photon energy was lower in ice.

This should be intuitive, James... why are you so fucking stupid that
you can't even figure out that electrostatic attraction *decreases*
with distance?

Holy fuck, James, seriously... are you retarded?

> That is only the first discrepancy between my model and Nilsson's.

Not just between your model and Nilsson's direct empirical
observations, James. Your kooky model not only stands in direct
diametric contrast to *every* water model, and *every* empirical
observation of water's properties, but in direct contradiction to the
fundamentals that make molecules behave the way they do! You're now
denying Coulomb's Law. Have you never wondered how and why a gold-leaf
electroscope works, James?

> And it is a big one.  As I'll explain more explicitly below, it means
> that what he interprets as indicative of close proximity I interpret
> as distance and vice versa.*

Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> So, my interpretation of minimum and maximum bond strengths are
> transposed compared to this: https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=39m56s

Because you're a reality-denying halfwit, James.

> (* It is extremely important that you get it clear in your head
> what exactly I mean when I say that for my model there is an
> inverse relationship between proximity and bond strength and
> how/why this is at odds with the standard model.

Oh, I'm perfectly clear as to why you deny the well-researched and
long-proven Standard Model... you're a crackpot who denies reality,
James. LOL

> If this concept isn't making 100% sense to you

No, James. I don't want to think like you... you're insane.

> I suggest rereading my paper again or watching this video:
> https://youtu.be/iDv2RoUrHTY?t=4m10s and/or

A delusional moron said:
> "When they are fully bonded, it's not really a bond anymore."

Fuck sake, Jim. Do you listen to your blather, or just blather without
thinking? A bond that isn't a bond.

A delusional halfwit said:
> "It's kinda like a gas, but that maintains close proximity to
> each other like a liquid."

And a gas that is a liquid. LOL!

A psychotic deluded moronic halfwit said:
> "That pendulimic relationship literally stores energy also."

And a molecule that stores energy as a pendulum, in direct
contradiction to all that is known about molecules... how is this
kooky "pendulimic stored energy" in your wholly fabricated "theory"
released, James?

According to your kooky "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases*
with distance, 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? You've just violated the Law of Conservation of
Energy on an atomic level.

Jesus Christ hopping on a fucking pogo stick, James, the mental
gymnastics you're going through to try to get your moronic "theory" to
work must cost a lot of mental energy trying to keep straight in your
head all the contradictions. Why not put that energy to learning about
something constructive... say, *reality*. LOL

> https://youtu.be/WSGv08Rb_Lo )
> 
> So, that's the first major discrepancy to realize: Nilsson et al's
> first principles and my first principles are at odds with each other.

Your "first principles", which you pulled straight from your ass and
which has no basis in reality nor any evidence to back it up, it at
odds with reality, you insane halfwitted crackpot. LOL

> Hold this discrepancy in the back of your mind as you read the
> rest of this.

>> They measured a spectral peak that was *not* from liquid water, James. 

> You don't know that.

Yeah, we do know that, James. Do you not understand how those spectral
peaks are created, and why?

> And I can't prove otherwise,

Translation:
"And I'm just pulling more retarded blather straight from my ass,"

> but I *think* this assumption is HIGHLY unlikely, as I'll explain below.  

You only think that because you know that *direct* *observation* (not
"assumption") reflects reality, which you deny, James.

>> If the spectral peak measured was not solid-phase water, and it was not
>> liquid-phase water, that leaves only one other phase, Jim.

> I understand your point.  And I am not dismissing it.

Translation:
"You've caught me in a logic trap again. Now I'll try to writhe my way
out of it with more blather pulled straight from my ass."

> I'm just saying that there is more potential for misinterpretation

It was a *direct* *measurement* of photon energy, James. There is no
room for misinterpretation. Ice has one spectra, liquid water has one
spectra, they measured a third spectra that wasn't either of those,
and therefore is gaseous-phase water. Monomolecular, phase-changed,
higher photon energy. You cannot deny a direct observational
measurement, James.

> here than you may be aware of, both on your part and on Nilsson's part.
> 
> Here is the first thing thing you are not taking into account.  What
> is being measured here is, ostensibly, the strength/distance of the
> H bonds.

Wrong. What is being measured is photon energy, James. You're trying
to conflate as means of weaseling out of having been proven *wrong*
again, and it's not working.

> Right?  Well, now think about that . . . if it was genuinely gas
> then . . . think about it . . . there would be no peak at all . . .
> BECAUSE IF IT WAS GENUINELY GASEOUS H2O THERE WOULD BE NO H BONDS!
> (Specifically, the data would not indicate a peak it would indicate
> a flat line because there would be no variation in bond distance
> to cause a statistical distribution.)

You've tried this tactic before and failed, James, just as you're
failing now.

The H bonding of solid-phase and liquid-phase water affects the photon
energy released, the more closely-held are the H bonds, the lesser the
photon energy, exactly as Anders Nilsson shows here:
https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156

That Anders Nilsson et. al. were measuring a spectral peak that did
not coincide with solid-phase water nor with liquid-phase water, a
spectral peak with *higher* photon energy than liquid-phase water,
means they were measuring gaseous-phase water, Jim. No H bonding,
monomolecular.

You'll note the gaseous-phase water's photon energy was *higher*
because it was monomer water, and thus had no inter-molecular H bonds.
If it had had any H bonds, it would have been liquid water, and thus
would have had a spectral peak identical to that of liquid water.

It could *not* have been liquid water, no matter how small the
droplet, James, or the spectral peak would have been identical to that
of liquid water.

Do you not understand this, James? That fact proves the existence of
gaseous water, hence that evaporation is a per-molecule process, hence
that latent heat of evaporation exists, hence the central premise of
your retarded "theory" is yet again destroyed, Jim.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Jim. It's over. You've been exposed as a
scientific fraud and a moron far too stupid and delusional to ever
model the atmosphere.

> That is the first clue (a clue that you missed)

I didn't miss anything, James. You're attempting to weasel out of
having been proven wrong again, but again you find your lack of
education and your insanity thwarts you from doing so.

> that they did not measure the genuine gaseous phase of H2O.

Had it been liquid-phase water in the air, it would have had the same
spectra as liquid water, James. It didn't. It was gaseous-phase water,
with a higher photon energy, exactly as physics says it would be.

You're desperate to refute this because you know it absolutely kills
your entire "theory", but you cannot.

> The plot thickens when we consider other factors,

Translation:
"I'll try to throw out more chaff to confuse the issue even more."

You'll only succeed in confusing yourself, James. The sane people are
clear on the concept of photon emission having a higher energy because
the molecules have a higher thermal kinetic energy.

> especially when we include the above mentioned differences
> between my first principles and those of Nilsson et al. 

You mean your "first principles" which you pulled straight from your
ass, with no supporting evidence to back them up... because you're an
insane kooktard.

>> You claim that water remains in the liquid phase when it
>> evaporates, thus its spectral peak would be the same as
>> liquid water, James.

> It's actually not that simple.

Yes, it's actually that simple, James. That you cannot embrace the
simplicity of how an atom or molecule absorbs energy, then emits a
photon to return to a lower energy state is no one's problem but your
own... hence why your kooky theory continues growing more convoluted
and contradictory with each passing day.

> The reality of the situation is even more complicated than you suggest.

No, it isn't, James.

>  Remember, a miniature droplet is going to have a higher ratio of
> surface to non-surface.  IOW, a higher ratio of  "surface tension!"
> 
> At this point you may be wondering why I put an exclamation point
> at the end of the the last sentence in the above paragraph.  It was
> not a mistake and it was not haphazard.  If you read my paper (and
> fully comprehended it) you would know why I put that exclamation
> point there.  And that reason is because in my model (and very much
> NOT in the standard model that Nilsson assumes) ice and surface
> tension are THE SAME THING--

Bwahahaaaaa! You moronic halfwit, that'd cause a *lower* photon
energy, just as is seen in ice. You're 180 degrees out from reality
*again*, Jim.

And that's not even taking into account that surface tension and ice
are not "THE SAME THING", you moron. Surface tension is due to reduced
anticooperativity due to only having 180 degrees worth of molecules to
bond to, thus there are *more* H bonds in the interfacial water. Ice
has *stronger* H bonds because the covalent bonds lengthen by ~4
picometers.

> that being (polarity activated) asymmetric bonds. What this means
> is that for vaporous (not genuinely gaseous) H2O we would expect
> it to have a relatively higher percentage of ice mixed in with a
> lower percentage of liquid--and what does the data indicate?

You have no data, only conjecture, Jim... except you're too fucking
stupid to even suss that properly. It'd indicate a *lower* photon
energy, just as is seen in ice, the exact *opposite* of what you're
trying (and failing) to prove.

Gee... how did I foresee you trying this tactic, James? How did I
already have all the research done to prove you *wrong*, as is
evidenced by the references above? Because I've seen your kind before,
Jim. You'll blather and blather until you're cornered with no way
out... and I've just cornered you, you pathetic retard.

> Well . . . lets let this question float for a moment . . .
>
> So, why is Nillson so (unabashedly) perplexed in this video.  Where did
> he go wrong?  Well, the first thing he did wrong was to assume that ice
> is a lattice of fully coordinated symmetric bonds.  (As I just indicated,
> my model

You have no "model", James. You have only the mad rantings of your
broken brain. You're too insane to acknowledge reality, and you're far
too stupid to ever attempt modeling it.

> assumes ice comprises a high percentage of asymmetric [polarity
> activated] bonds.) From this point on confusion ensues for Nilsson.
> Because from this point on he interprets fully coordinated symmetric
> bonds as strong bonds and asymmetric as weak bonds--exactly the opposite
> of how I interpret the same data.

Which is why you're 180 degrees out from reality, Jim... Nilsson has
*empirical* *experimentation*... data, Jim. You only have blather.
Which do you think is more plausible?

> Thus he, according to my model, transposes the significance of the data
> in liquid water.  Where he sees strength he assumes fully coordinated
> symmetric bonds and where he sees weakness he assumes asymmetric bonds.

Because Coulomb's Law, a law built from empirical observation and
careful experimentation, dictates that a strong bond is a short bond,
which makes it symmetric, James, whereas a long, weak bond will be
asymmetric. That's *why* ice forms lattices, that's *why* water in its
liquid phase is _liquid_, you halfwit. The bond strength goes down as
the temperature goes up.

In your world, we'd get gaseous-phase water by *freezing* it, and we'd
get solid-phase water by boiling it. You idiot.

> It's also important to be cognizant of the fact that the reason Nilsson
> made this mistake

He made no mistake. The mistake lies in your inability to wrap your
badly damaged brain around reality.

> is because if you start from the assumption that ice is a lattice of
> fully coordinated symmetric bonds you have no choice but to also assume
> that symmetric is strong and asymmetric is weak.

Moron claims steam is more symmetric than ice! Bwahahaaaa!

> (Of course, keep in mind that Nilsson made this mistake

He made no mistake. The mistake lies in your inability to wrap your
badly damaged brain around reality.

> is because he doesn't have the benefit of the understanding revealed
> in my paper.)

You have no understanding, James, as you've just demonstrated. All you
have is conjecture, supposition and a raging case of paranoid
schizophrenia. Where's your data to support your contention that steam
is more symmetric than ice, Halfwit?

> The second thing he did wrong

He did nothing wrong. You're just an anti-science reality-denying
halfwitted insane moron, Jim.

> was to make the classic mistake of assuming that vaporous H2O is gaseous.

That's because it is. According to you, gaseous-phase water is more
symmetric and therefore more solid than ice! Because you're a moron.

> (He would have had to have employed a vacuum chamber or a pressure
> cooker to have achieved this.)  And this mistake

There was no mistake on his part, Jim. The mistake lies in your
inability to accept reality. You'd turn on its head every aspect of
science, to include the Standard Model and Coulomb's Law, in order
that you can continue to delude yourself into thinking you're smarter
than every single scientist in the past 250+ years.

But you're nor, Jim. You've demonstrated that you're a dishonest
scientific fraud, and an insane laughingstock.

> was further complicated by the fact that (as I explained above) there is
> a high ratio of surface to non-surface in droplets AND by the fact (again,
> as described above) ice and surface tension are the same thing (an
> assumption that Nilsson would find strange).

Because it is 180 degrees out from reality, you halfwit. And that'd
cause *lower* photon energy... unless you're now going to try to
stupidly argue that photon energy *increases* as temperature
*decreases*... but riddle me this, James... what happens at absolute
zero in your model?

Oh, that's right... that fucking water is throwing off photons so
bright they rival the sun.

You moron.

The rest of your backpedaling conflating anti-science nitwittery is
snipped, James. You've already been proven wrong *again*, there's
little need for me to continue to rub your nose in your stupidity.

And now for the References, which I note you never provide except for
your own retarded blather... you'll note a good portion of these are
direct empirical observations:
========================================
Anslyn, Eric (2004). Modern Physical Organic Chemistry. Sausalito, CA:
University Science. ISBN 978-1-891389-31-3.

IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book").
Compiled by A.D. McNaught and A. Wilkinson, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford, UK (1997). (b) XML on-line corrected version:
http://goldbook.iupac.org(2006- ) created by M. Nic, J. Jirat, and B.
Kosata; updates compiled by A.D. Jenkins.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html

S.V. Goryainov, A model of phase transitions in double-well Morse
potential: Application to hydrogen bond, Physica B 407 (2012)
4233-4237.

S. J. Grabowski, A new measure of hydrogen bonding strength - ab
initio and atoms in molecules studies, Chem. Phys. Lett. 338 (2001)
361-366.

E. Espinosa, E. Molins, C. Lecomte, Hydrogen bond strengths revealed
by topological analyses of experimentally observed electron densities,
Chem. Phys. Lett. 285 (1998) 170-173.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.1355.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1301.full.pdf

Ph. Wernet, D. Nordlund, U. Bergmann, M. Cavalleri, M. Odelius, H.
Ogasawara, L. Å. Näslund, T. K. Hirsch, L. Ojamäe, P. Glatzel, L. G.
M. Pettersson and A. Nilsson, The structure of the first coordination
shell in liquid water, Sciencexpress 1 April 2004;
10.1126/science.1096205 ; Science 304 (2004) 995-999.

F. Bartha, O. Kapuy, C. Kozmutza and C. Van Alsenoy, Analysis of
weakly bound structures: hydrogen bond and the electron density in a
water dimer, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 666-667 (2003) 117-122. 

R.Ludwig, The effect of hydrogen bonding on the thermodynamic and
spectroscopic properties of molecular clusters and liquids, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys. 4 (2002) 5481-5487.
========================================

But before you go, do take another hilarious crack at proving yourself
*wrong*, James... the contradictions in your "theory" are in my .sig.

-- 

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 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 — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 06:52 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-20 18:44 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:00 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:11 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:01 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 05:26 +0100
  Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
    Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 04:50 +0100
      Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-22 16:26 +0100
        Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 05:07 +0100
          Re: Nilsson Did Measure Gaseous H2O Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-23 17:58 +0100

csiph-web