Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #655395
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| References | (2 earlier) <f8d51603-6084-44bd-bede-29faf0d5b1db@googlegroups.com> <503c65a2fe02238b2b3e56027603ce97@dizum.com> <4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> <d614268300a6c5af82fbdd9a565bb6d8@dizum.com> <e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> |
| Subject | Re: NOY: "You're now denying Coulomb's Law". |
| Message-ID | <ebb326a17ef291cda0c2d8971322681e@dizum.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2016-03-29 19:21 +0200 |
| 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 'Tardnado' McGinn, in <news:e326f716-9441-4866-b875-e3a23abb28a3@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, socked up as >> Solving Tornadoes, in >> <news:4318ff9a-9c4d-4f20-84cd-5dc418054025@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:02:47 PM UTC-7, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> Obviously not. >>>> That's right. It's obvious that you're fooling no one. >>>> >>>> You claim Coulomb's Law states the exact opposite of what it actually >>>> states >>> You are delibately misrepresenting my words. >> I'm not. In fact, when you were called on your dishonest attempt to >> twist Coulomb's Law to state exactly the opposite of what it actually >> states so you could fit it to your delusion, you invented an entirely >> new "mechanism" of electrostatic attraction which works opposite to >> Coulomb's Law... > You Did your mommy drink like an Irishman when she was pregnant with you, James? Is that what fucked up your brain? Or did she pass on her wicked case of Irish syphilis to you and they didn't catch it until it'd eaten half your brain? Or was your congenital birth defect in the form of severe mental retardation the result of the usual Irish incest? LOL You fucking boob, you're a joke, a laughingstock. Your name has now become a verb in scientific circles describing scientific fraud. LOL "The IPCC sure McGinn'd that temperature data. It's obvious they changed it again. What retard thought he could get away with that?" I did that to you, James. Yer welcome. <snicker> > still are dishonestly paraphrasing my words instead of quoting me > directly. You seem to have no understanding of intellectual honestly. That's rich, coming from the broken-brained retard trying to twist scientific concepts to fit his delusion, which he's forced to shift around as he slaps patches on it to cover up those gaping logic holes, only to expose even more holes. > You don't get it. > > You are a child. You're a mentally ill halfwit with a broken schizo-brain and a penchant for lying, James. You're a scientific fraud and a worldwide laughingstock. You're the pathetic clown too stupid to understand reality. You're the crayon-scribbling mushbrain who's going to "class-action" kooksoot *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for their part in that giant conspiracy to thwart your attempts to remodel reality to fit your delusions. Where's that kooksoot, James? Did you wear your crayons to a nub, and mommy won't buy you any more? LOL You sad pathetic brain-damaged little halfwit. If you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden slug, you'd be embarrassed for yourself... if you had half the sense that God gave a fucking garden slug. Why can't you answer those questions, James? -- Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in your "theory": ============================================================ Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James? Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia? Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and help you to not piss all over yourself? And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser. 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. You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrstatic attraction increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually cancel, thereby dissociating all water, 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 only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other types of clouds, 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? How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't you explain that, James? Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is *below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory not-a-theory" can't answer. Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James? Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your delusions, James? Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process, James? Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James? Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions, James? Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James? Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being *deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James? Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as "delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James? Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of education about now, James? Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been deemed mentally incompetent, James? Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist", James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated, whereas you're ignorant and uneducated? What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then you're not a physicist, James. LOL 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 thousands 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 are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James? How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their surface area as you claim? 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 are you not taking your meds, James? ============================================================ 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