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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #651595

Re: Clouds are made of water - Part I - Subpart B

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:8d251d04-1985-4e03-8cb6-29552ed00ae0@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> 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.

> Why don't you see if Al Gore can help you then. LOL.

Non sequiturs are the *best* James McGinn can come up with as defense
of his kooky conspiracy theory... his tacit admission of defeat.

>> 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.

> If you think it definitive then why not make an argument to that effect?

I just did, Jim. The multi-frequency split-window technique to
determine cloud optical depth and atmospheric humidity has been used
for years by NASA, Jim.

> But it has to be definitive.  No Global-warming-reasoning will be accepted.

Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.

>> 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?

> Yes:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Referring back to your own kooky conspiracy theory blather is like
standing in an echo chamber screaming at the top of your lungs and
taking the echoes as confirmation of your kooky blathering, Jim. It's
an indication of mental instability and a burgeoning schizoid
paranoiac insanity. Seek immediate professional psychiatric
intervention, 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... 

> Wrong.  It' is always liquid or solid (ice).  It is never gaseous.

Wrong. I've presented *two* peer-reviewed studies proving the
existence of monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere, 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>

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.

<snicker>

>> 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... 

> I address this point in my videos.

Your kooky conspiracy theory videos are merely the outgrowth of your
kooky written conspiracy theory, Jim. The same retarded tripe in a
different form. IOW, you have nothing in your arsenal to refute the
peer-reviewed studies I presented with utterly *destroyed* your kooky
conspiracy theory.

>> 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.

> Right.  Based on meteorology's assumptions clouds should drop out of
> the sky like bricks.  Right?  But they don't. Why do you think that is?

Wrong, that's according to your wrong interpretation of meteorology's
assumptions. The reality of physical phenomena such as clouds has been
explained to you, including links to corroborable data. You snipped it
out and ran away from it because you're a delusional paranoiac
suffering from the crippling effects of Dunning-Kruger.

>> 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?

> You exemplify the dimwittedness of meteorological assumptions.

That must be why you find yourself utterly unable to refute any of
that peer-reviewed data, right, Jim? Everyone else is crazy and *you*
are the only sane one. Everyone else who has years of training and
experience is wrong, but *you*, a high school dropout kooktard who has
demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly, are the only one who is right.

Yeah, that makes sense, Jim. Right?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>>> 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

> Yet you are conceding that it is not conclusive, right?

I "conceded" no such thing, Jim. It is a peer-reviewed study which
utterly decimates your kooky conspiracy theory. Do you not understand
what the peer-review process entails, Jim? Oh, of course you don't...
you can't get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, nor can you even get your kooky conspiracy theory published
on any pre-print servers. Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy
theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Answer the question, you
evasive twit.

>>> Ever heard of the scientific method?

>> Sure I have, which is why I've been offering evidence consisting of 
>> peer reviewed studies... 

> Peer review is consensus.  Consensus is politics.  (I am not a
> climate scientist.)  Only empirical evidence is valid if you
> want to collect the money. Sorry to burst your bubble.  I thought
> this was obvious.  Sorry if you got the wrong idea.

Ah, another goalpost move from the evasive twit James McGinn. Well,
it's a good thing I've presented empirical evidence such as you taking
a trip from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest with a container of
water, eh, Jim? That also disproves your kooky theory. So you'll be
paying up. Now.

>>>> 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 affects the symmetry on the Oxygen molecule, dumbass.

No, it doesn't. It affects the diametrically-opposed covalent bond,
shortening it, as I've proven via two peer-reviewed studies, which you
snipped out and ran away from, 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 diametrically-opposite
covalent bond 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 H
bond 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?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-····OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H····OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your  lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>

>>> You are ignoring symmetry, to no good effect.  

>> You don't even know what 'symmetry' means, Jim, 

> Look into VESPR theory.  

Oh, trust me, Jim. I know about VESPR theory. You're still misusing
the word 'symmetry', Jim.

>>> 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.

> Actually I do.

Actually, you don't, as the data above proves, 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. 

> Explain surface tension using your model.  Go ahead.
> What are you waiting for?

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?

>>> 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, 

> Your explanation of surface tension is ad hoc. It's not intrinsic.
> You just tacked it on. It's worthless. 

That explanation is backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies, you
fecking nong. It's been vetted and proven to reflect reality.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>> 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

> It's still just a model, dumbass.  Model's are not evidence.
> That you use a model as evidence reveals your dimwittedness.

It is a model which explains all physical phenomenon of water, Jim.
Backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies. How many studies back up your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim?

Oh, that's right, ZERO. In fact, you can't even get your kooky
conspiracy theory itself through the peer-review process. Why is that,
Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

>>> Descriptive models don't dispute reality, dumbass.
>>> Then do the experiment that prove it.  

>> Kooktard keeps asking for "experiments", when that data has been known 
>> for a very long time... 

> As you are revealing, none of it is definitive.

It is, you're just backpedaling away from the fact that your kooky
conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim.

>> 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, 

> Boiling stops below 100, dumbass.

Very good, Jim! At least you can acknowledge reality when it suits you
to do so. So we know you're not fully delusional... yet.

>> yet evaporation does occur.

> Evaporation occurs all the way do to freezing, dumbass.

Very good again, Jim! In fact, it occurs even *below* the freezing
point, Jim. Or are you going to now deny sublimation?

>> 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.

> You're an idiot.

I've proven your kooky theory is *wrong*, Jim. You're the idiot.

>> Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process,

> Surreal.

I'm sure you do find reality to be "surreal", Jim... Dunning-Kruger
sufferers often do. It's part and parcel of your burgeoning insanity.
You can fix yourself, it's not too late. All it requires is
acknowledging that your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly
destroyed, and thereby escaping its insanity-inducing grip.

I don't think you're strong enough to do that, Jim.

<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 — Previous in thread | 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