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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651398

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I

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:54765c2d-3b30-4d28-bfe8-cb5a94b25771@googlegroups.com> did 
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong. It is because the inter-molecular bond is weaker and thus has a
>> higher probability of being broken via random thermal-driven
>> collisions imparting sufficient energy to a molecule to break the
>> inter-molecular H bond.

> Nobody debates that it is weaker.  But that is not the issue, AFAIC.

Oh, good. That established, then you're forced to admit that the much 
stronger diametrically-opposed covalent bond preferentially shortens 
and strengthens when one of the H bonds is broken, as I've proven via 
reference to peer-reviewed studies. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is one 
of the central tenets of your kooky theory, Jim... IOW, I've just 
utterly destroyed your theory, Jim. Because you're a low-information 
moron who can't wrap your underpowered brain around physical 
processes, Jim.

>> Again, if the bond strength was variable, the solvent properties of
>> water would be variable.

> Why do you assume this and/or why do you assume they (the solvent
> properties) are not variable?

Because, you fucking moron, the solvent properties of water *depends* 
upon the hydrogen bonding of water. If the polarity of water varied as 
you claim, the hydrogen bond strength would vary, thus the solvent 
properties of water would vary. We know it doesn't, Jim. Thus, yet 
another central tenet of your kooky theory is destroyed, Jim.

>>>  And that is because polarity is not simply a function of
>>> electronegativity, it is also a function of asymmetry.

>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>> but molecular polarity does not change. 

> How would you prove this?

Well, Jim, if you knew even the most basic about molecular physics, 
you'd realize that hydrogen bonding has a preferred direction and thus 
an optimum strength.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==========================================================
An important feature of the hydrogen bond is that it possesses 
direction; by convention this direction is that of the shorter O-H 
(->) covalent bond (the O-H hydrogen atom being donated to the O-atom 
acceptor atom on another H2O molecule).
==========================================================

And that destroys yet another central tenet of your kooky little 
theory, Jim... I can continue doing this until you're forced to admit 
you're a low-information delusional moron, or you can save yourself 
the concomitant embarrassment and admit it now, Jim.

>> For fuck sake, no it's not. Bond strength is a function of bond angle,
>> but molecular polarity does not change. You'll be getting right on
>> detailing exactly how a water molecule is giving up electrons or
>> taking on extra electrons to change its polarity, you fecking nong.
>> Have you ever taken even an *introductory* physics or chemistry class?
>> I bet not.

> It doesn't.  The location of the electrons (or, the electron cloud) shifts.

Oh, so you're saying it changes its polarity, but it doesn't change 
its polarity, then. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now does 
it, Jim?

And what, pray tell, causes your purported shift in electron 
probability distribution about the molecule, Jim?

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can 
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the 
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we, 
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that 
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge 
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me 
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

>>> And H bonds restore symmetry thereby neutralizing H2O polarity in
>>> the liquid state. IOW, in the liquid state of water the molecules
>>> therein have had their polarity neutralized by H bonds.  

>> Wrong. Bond angle (your misuse of the word symmetry is noted) and thus
>> bond strength changes as a result of random thermal collisions, but
>> molecular polarity does not change.

> That is your premise.  I have my premise.  Neither of us has proof.

Sure I have proof, Jim. You don't. In fact, I posted that proof, 
remember? You ran away from it before, you'll likely do it again:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

Why are you so stupid, Jim? People far smarter than you have figured 
all this out long before you conceived of your kooky discredited 
theory, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

> But I am offering genuine cash if you can prove H2O a gas below its
> boiling temperature/pressure.

I just did, Jim. Using peer-reviewed research from people far smarter 
and saner than you. You'll be forwarding that money. Now.

>>> One of these implications is that H2O forms very small droplets
>>> that appear to be a gas when mixed in with air at ambient
>>> temperatures.

>> Wrong. Any vapor below its Critical Temperature will have both vapor
>> *and* gaseous phase.

> Too bad you can't prove this.  

Sure I can prove it... in fact, that's how weather forecasters and 
climate researchers determine cloud depth. Oh, Jim didn't realize that 
water in its gaseous phase, water in its liquid phase and water in its 
solid phase would reflect and refract different wavelengths, did he?

Water in its gaseous phase reflects and refracts microwave radiation 
at a far lower rate than does, say, the water vapor in clouds. Thus 
the differential tells researchers cloud depth as well as humidity.

Did you never stop to consider why, exactly, water in its gaseous 
phase exists primarily in the troposphere, whereas carbon dioxide and 
nitrogen, for example, can rise far above the troposphere, Jim?

Did you never stop to consider why water can go *below* its freezing 
temperature after being updrafted into the upper troposphere, yet not 
immediately fall out of the sky (hint: because it's in its gaseous 
phase... individual molecules... it can only phase change to ice once 
it condenses together, which requires collision with other water 
molecules, and thus takes time. Individual water molecules cannot 
"freeze", Jim.)?

Do you not understand that the term "vapor" is merely gaseous water at 
a temperature lower than its condensation temperature, ie: a mixture 
of gaseous and liquid water, Jim? According to you, since you k'lame 
all water in the atmosphere is clustered, it would be heavier than air 
and would thus all fall out of the air once its mass exceeded its 
downward-facing combined radius holding it up due to updraft... thus 
rainfall would be next to impossible, the lower troposphere would 
perpetually be enveloped in falling mist, and every horizontal surface 
would be perpetually covered with a film of water.

Are you beginning to understand that you don't understand much at all, 
Jim? Are you beginning to see that you conceived of your kooky little 
theory and ran off half-cocked, crowing about your "discovery" without 
fully testing its premises, Jim?

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

>>> It's very small droplets that look like gas to the naked eye and
>>> that are even too small to be seen on microscope.  

>> Then you'll have no problem providing a microscopy printout of these
>> so-called "small droplets", Jim. Do you even own a microscope?

> So, now you are conceding that you don't have counterevidence?

I've just provided yet another peer reviewed study proving that 
gaseous water exists in the atmosphere, thereby proving your kooky 
theory wrong, while meeting the conditions of your kooky challenge, 
Jim. You'll be paying me that $100,000 now.

>>> Read this paper for more details:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

>> Referring to your own kook blather isn't proof of anything other than
>> you're suffering from a crippling case of Dunning-Kruger, Jim. Where
>> is your third-party corroborable proof? Why has every meteorologist,
>> physicist and physical sciences researcher told you that you are
>> wrong, Jim? Might that be a clue that you're a kooktard, Jim?

> Ever heard of the scientific method?

Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of 
peer reviewed studies... said studies having torn your kooky theory to 
shreds. It's apparent you've never heard of the scientific method, 
though... you think a kooky thought, then go out searching for 
evidence to support your kooky thought, ignoring that evidence proving 
your kooky thought wrong, while conflating any evidence you can 
distort to fit your kooky theory.

>>> Each H2O can form two acceptor bonds on its negative Oxygen molecule.
>>> WHEN YOU BREAK ONE YOU ACTIVATE THE POLARITY MAKING THE OTHER ONE A
>>> STRONGER BOND. Evaporation is associate with breakng the first
>>> (weaker) hond.  Boiling is involved with the second.  That is why
>>> boiling requires such high temps and is impossible at ambient temps.
>>> Read my paper for details.

>> Wrong, but nice CAPSscreed, Jim. The two acceptor bonds are to two
>> *different* water molecules. 

> No duh.

Then breaking one will not affect the other, KookTard. It will affect 
the diametrically-opposed covalent bond, as I proved above, Jim... 
which destroys yet another tenet of your kooky theory.

>> Thus to break one of those water
>> molecules free (to evaporate it) only requires breaking one
>> inter-molecular H bond. Polarity is polarity, the electronegativity of
>> the second inter-molecular bond won't become stronger simply because
>> it can *only* achieve an electronegativity of 1+.

> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  

You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, given that you've been 
misusing it all this time. Moron.

> I understand polarity better than anybody

No, you don't. You're a moronic delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted 
kooktard who believes himself to know polarity better than anybody, 
but you demonstrate daily that in reality you know squat, Jim.

>> In fact, the H bonding gets *weaker* when one is knocked loose.

> Surface tension proves you wrong and me right.

You've already been proven wrong below, Jim. Peer reviewed data.

> If what you are saying is true H2O would have no surface tension.  

The surface condition is a special case, Jim, so I'm not surprised you 
don't know about it.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable 
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just 
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less 
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the 
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and 
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a 
lower temperature).
=====================================================

So the "surface tension" is a result of the increased viscosity of the 
interfacial water, Jim. Did you not know this, Jim? What kind of loon 
would hold themselves out as the 'premiere expert' on water, and yet 
not know a single fact *about* water, Jim?

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
>> strengths; the stronger the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
>> covalent bond, and the shorter the O--O distance"
>> 
>> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
>> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
>> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
>> preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
>> bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
>> dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
>> long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
>> you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

> That's a model, dumbass.  That is not reality.
> That is a (poorly considered) attempt to explain what is observed.
> So, only a loon would employ that as proof.

That model happens to be the model that is accepted as more accurate 
than any of the dozens of other water models, Jim. I note your kooky 
theory has no water model, no mathematics, nothing... just the blather 
from a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who employs denial, 
backpedaling, non sequiturs and deflection to cover up the numerous 
shortcomings in his kooky theory.

>> You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
>> premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
>> kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.

Then it's a good thing the descriptive model I used to utterly destroy 
your kooky theory is considered the most accurate water model ever 
conceived of, Jim. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying 
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious due to the fact that the 
loss of one hydrogen bond doesn't strengthen the other hydrogen bond, 
it preferentially strengthens the diametrically opposite covalent 
bond, as the peer reviewed data I presented proved, Jim.

>>> Hell no.  I'm denying that they are the same a boiling.  

>> They are exactly the same as boiling, Jim, except that in boiling, the
>> partial pressure is high enough to overcome atmospheric pressure and
>> thus form bubbles, whereas below that pressure, the molecules will
>> still be miscible in air, but no bubbles can form.

> Then do the experiment that prove it.  

Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known 
for a very long time... do you not know these simple facts about water 
because you're stupid, Jim, or because you're an uneducated oaf?

I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea 
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is 
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.

Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is 
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so 
boiling does not occur, yet evaporation does occur.

Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt. 
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will 
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being 
70 C.

Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process, but evaporation 
has the condition where gaseous phase pressure is insufficient to 
overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus bulk boiling cannot occur, and 
hence bubbles will not form in the bulk of the liquid.

You'll note the only condition that changed to transition from 
evaporation to boiling was atmospheric pressure, Jim... hence 
evaporation and boiling are the same process under different 
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky tenets of your kooky 
theory, Jim. Now you'll be forced to backpedal away from reality 
again.

> You already lost the argument.  

Says the moron as he cowardly snips out all the proof which utterly 
decimates his kooky theory, while he backpedals like mad, doesn't even 
attempt to refute the reality I promulgate, and instead is engaged in 
a duck-n-cover retreat as he proves himself more and more to be a 
moron who really knows very little about much of anything.

>>> Address the issue, you evasive twit.  H2O does have a high boiling
>>> point, does it not?

Awwww, poor stupid Jim cowardly snipped out my reply so he could bleat 
again. Restored:

> Answer the question you evasive twit.

James McGinn is *so* stupid he doesn't realize that when a H bond is 
broken, it doesn't strengthen the other H bond, it preferentially 
strengthens the diametrically-opposite covalent bond.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the covalent bonds will
preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of the inter-molecular
bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high frequency AC to
dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond frequency, as the
long covalent bond frequency is too close to the O-O frequency, and if
you break that, you strengthen the covalent bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

>> Inter-molecular hydrogen bond strength depends nearly linearly upon
>> bond length.

> Dimwitted.

For fuck sake, Jim, if you're going to continue denying reality, 
people are going to come to realize you're nothing more than a 
delusional dimwitted Dunning-Kruger afflicted uneducated moron.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
==========================================================
As hydrogen bond strength depends almost linearly on its length 
(shorter length giving stronger hydrogen bonding), it also depends 
almost linearly (outside extreme values) on the temperature and 
pressure [818].

[818] R. C. Dougherty, Temperature and pressure dependence of hydrogen 
bond strength: A perturbation molecular orbital approach, J. Chem. 
Phys. 109 (1998) 7372-7378.
==========================================================

That's yet another peer-reviewed study proving you're a moronic 
kooktard, Jim. It also happens to yet again poke holes in your kooky 
theory, Jim. Now you'll be forced to run away from reality again, 
Jim... keep doing that long enough and it'll become a habit leading to 
you becoming fully delusional. Trust me on this... I'm an expert on 
driving kooks like you insane.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so 
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the 
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius 
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the 
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent 
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the 
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you 
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = 
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is 
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original 
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't 
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend 
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's 
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant 
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral 
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry 
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an 
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor 
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general 
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of 
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is 
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was 
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative 
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects 
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is 
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive 
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the 
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby 
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, 
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes 
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon 
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there 
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in 
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of 
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could 
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, 
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature 
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and 
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody 
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow 
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming 
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of 
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron 
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain 
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien 
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron 
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the 
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed 
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven 
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of 
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral 
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how 
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; 
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", 
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on 
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead 
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that 
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared 
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate 
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a 
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second 
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same 
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that 
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three 
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a 
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's 
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that 
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:39 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 02:34 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-08 13:47 -0500
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 03:33 +0800
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:05 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-09 05:39 -0700
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 22:44 +0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 08:51 -0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 17:21 +0000
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:03 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 10:13 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 18:17 +0000
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:50 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:24 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:28 -0500
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 15:37 -0800
                Re: Mustaffa was Clouds are made of water - Part I buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-09 18:39 -0500
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I "\"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> - 2016-03-09 12:36 -0500
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 02:06 +0800
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:54 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-09 08:43 +0000
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:11 +0100
      Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 04:09 +0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:12 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:23 +0000
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-09 20:21 +0000
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 12:23 -0800
        Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:59 +0100
          Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0800
            Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:21 +0100
              Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:19 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:58 +0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:07 -0800
                Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart A Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:17 +0100
  Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:28 +0100

csiph-web