134a Refrigerant
#1561
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
>
> Earle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
>
> Earle
#1562
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Not intentionally. I can tell you though that this technique works, whether
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
#1563
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Not intentionally. I can tell you though that this technique works, whether
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
#1564
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Not intentionally. I can tell you though that this technique works, whether
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
#1565
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Not intentionally. I can tell you though that this technique works, whether
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
you are telling a lie or the truth. Just keep saying it, and people will
believe. I believe that it is understood best when read with a quote by
Lincoln. There are people who will just not listen to the truth, no matter
how loud and often it is shouted at them. "Some of the people, all of the
time." Nate's new sock puppet may be one of these.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42BF92B7.3BE59E9C@***.net...
> Are we trying to evoke the Godwin law? ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > The original of this idea is attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
> >
> > Earle
#1566
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
#1567
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
#1568
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
#1569
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
>
>>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
>
>
> lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if the
> source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect at
> _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
>
>
>
>>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
>
>
> because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> because it is heavier than air.
>
Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
--
jeff
#1570
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Ye gods! Logic being reintroduced at this point? Who would've thunk!
/Peter
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:i3Uve.3843$Xr6.3282@trnddc07...
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> > "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> >
> >>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
> >
> >
> > lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if
the
> > source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect
at
> > _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
> >
> >
> > because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> > because it is heavier than air.
> >
>
> Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
> they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
> language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
> solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
> vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
> it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
> absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
> average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
> mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
> tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
> How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
> air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
> air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
> leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
> part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
>
> --
> jeff
/Peter
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:i3Uve.3843$Xr6.3282@trnddc07...
> Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> > "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:MM5ve.1816$5w3.212@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
> >
> >>Logical fallacy... you don't get to impugn the source
> >
> >
> > lol youre basing your statements upon the credibility of the source! if
the
> > source is a self-serving governmental entity its conclusions are suspect
at
> > _best_. give me something conclusive from the scientific community.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Not science. No mention of ozone layer anywhere.
> >
> >
> > because it will never reach the ozone. as it clearly stated, it falls
> > because it is heavier than air.
> >
>
> Service manuals are not the bible. Any reasonably good tech knows that
> they are only the starting point for thinking. Set the simplistic
> language of service manuals for one moment and apply your problem
> solving thought processes to other observable world phenomena: Water
> vapor is heavier than air. We know this because fog is water vapor and
> it lays near the ground. IF you follow the heavier than air argument as
> absolute truth, then clouds cannot exist. For example, if you take an
> average cumulus cloud, it will be about a mile square by about half a
> mile thick and will have a water vapor/ice crystal weight of about 2000
> tons. That is certainly "heavier than air".
> How is that possible when some service manual says vapors heaver than
> air irrevocably fall to the ground? The answer is yes vapors heaver than
> air fall, in a localized environment, like immediately adjacent to a
> leaking line, but, like a water drop evaporating and eventually becoming
> part of a cloud, it will diffuse into the atmosphere.
>
> --
> jeff