"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22mr91obr9f6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JQ%De.1938$Ok6.327@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
> > Grammer is how we communicate
>
> TRANSLATION --> "my argument is losing so ill attack grammar"
>
> :-) doesnt work bottom-boy, spin away from your losing all you want, we
> wont be diverted.

Yes, your 'ill' attack is not effective... another smelly little fish.
Double negative... elementary school stuff, Nate.

> >> that wasnt my post to you.....that was my post to jeff. my post to YOU
> >> clearly stated -30 degrees.
>
> > Spinning.... spinning.
>
> i know thats what youre trying to do but i wont let you. :-) my post to
> YOU clearly stated -30 degrees. :-)

But not as a limiting factor! Only as an elaboration...
and in no case holds for the original challenge, which
I met handily. You are a welch.

> > you try to weasel in a condition where
> > the ambient is low.
>
> LIAR! i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees to YOU well before you even knew what an
> HMC was.

Clearly with a 'such as' limiting case... not the
challenge definition. Why do you spin so?
Because without your self-imposed low
ambient spec, I win! Therefore, I win!
Again!

>>Here's a lie for you... someone once suggested to
>>me that he'd change his views on ozone depletion
>>when presented with convincing evidence of the
>>cause-and-effect due to CFC usage... after presenting
>>reams of high-quality evidence, the person did
>>not change their views... indeed, he proceeded
>>to pontificate his own version of atmospheric
>>science garnered from a leak detector user
>>manual. I'd call such a person a damn liar, wouldn't
>>you?
>
> this is a given with each statement you make.

?? Whatever... I don't have to call you a liar,
since you've already demonstrated you're a
welch.

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22mr91obr9f6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JQ%De.1938$Ok6.327@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
> > Grammer is how we communicate
>
> TRANSLATION --> "my argument is losing so ill attack grammar"
>
> :-) doesnt work bottom-boy, spin away from your losing all you want, we
> wont be diverted.

Yes, your 'ill' attack is not effective... another smelly little fish.
Double negative... elementary school stuff, Nate.

> >> that wasnt my post to you.....that was my post to jeff. my post to YOU
> >> clearly stated -30 degrees.
>
> > Spinning.... spinning.
>
> i know thats what youre trying to do but i wont let you. :-) my post to
> YOU clearly stated -30 degrees. :-)

But not as a limiting factor! Only as an elaboration...
and in no case holds for the original challenge, which
I met handily. You are a welch.

> > you try to weasel in a condition where
> > the ambient is low.
>
> LIAR! i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees to YOU well before you even knew what an
> HMC was.

Clearly with a 'such as' limiting case... not the
challenge definition. Why do you spin so?
Because without your self-imposed low
ambient spec, I win! Therefore, I win!
Again!

>>Here's a lie for you... someone once suggested to
>>me that he'd change his views on ozone depletion
>>when presented with convincing evidence of the
>>cause-and-effect due to CFC usage... after presenting
>>reams of high-quality evidence, the person did
>>not change their views... indeed, he proceeded
>>to pontificate his own version of atmospheric
>>science garnered from a leak detector user
>>manual. I'd call such a person a damn liar, wouldn't
>>you?
>
> this is a given with each statement you make.

?? Whatever... I don't have to call you a liar,
since you've already demonstrated you're a
welch.

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22mr91obr9f6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JQ%De.1938$Ok6.327@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
> > Grammer is how we communicate
>
> TRANSLATION --> "my argument is losing so ill attack grammar"
>
> :-) doesnt work bottom-boy, spin away from your losing all you want, we
> wont be diverted.

Yes, your 'ill' attack is not effective... another smelly little fish.
Double negative... elementary school stuff, Nate.

> >> that wasnt my post to you.....that was my post to jeff. my post to YOU
> >> clearly stated -30 degrees.
>
> > Spinning.... spinning.
>
> i know thats what youre trying to do but i wont let you. :-) my post to
> YOU clearly stated -30 degrees. :-)

But not as a limiting factor! Only as an elaboration...
and in no case holds for the original challenge, which
I met handily. You are a welch.

> > you try to weasel in a condition where
> > the ambient is low.
>
> LIAR! i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees to YOU well before you even knew what an
> HMC was.

Clearly with a 'such as' limiting case... not the
challenge definition. Why do you spin so?
Because without your self-imposed low
ambient spec, I win! Therefore, I win!
Again!

>>Here's a lie for you... someone once suggested to
>>me that he'd change his views on ozone depletion
>>when presented with convincing evidence of the
>>cause-and-effect due to CFC usage... after presenting
>>reams of high-quality evidence, the person did
>>not change their views... indeed, he proceeded
>>to pontificate his own version of atmospheric
>>science garnered from a leak detector user
>>manual. I'd call such a person a damn liar, wouldn't
>>you?
>
> this is a given with each statement you make.

?? Whatever... I don't have to call you a liar,
since you've already demonstrated you're a
welch.

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22diml6bs253@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:sm%De.1933$Ok6.273@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> > the atmosphere is never still.
>
> it doesnt continually move enough air to lift heavier gases above lighter
> ones. to a degree, yes....but it settles before reaching the ozone layer.

Your crap unsays itself! You're spinning so hard
your own story can't get itself straight!

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22diml6bs253@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:sm%De.1933$Ok6.273@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> > the atmosphere is never still.
>
> it doesnt continually move enough air to lift heavier gases above lighter
> ones. to a degree, yes....but it settles before reaching the ozone layer.

Your crap unsays itself! You're spinning so hard
your own story can't get itself straight!

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22diml6bs253@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:sm%De.1933$Ok6.273@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> > the atmosphere is never still.
>
> it doesnt continually move enough air to lift heavier gases above lighter
> ones. to a degree, yes....but it settles before reaching the ozone layer.

Your crap unsays itself! You're spinning so hard
your own story can't get itself straight!

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11e22diml6bs253@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:sm%De.1933$Ok6.273@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> > the atmosphere is never still.
>
> it doesnt continually move enough air to lift heavier gases above lighter
> ones. to a degree, yes....but it settles before reaching the ozone layer.

Your crap unsays itself! You're spinning so hard
your own story can't get itself straight!

And lest we forget, the millstone around your
neck:

<>
you:
> more babble. i nailed you on it. i recognize my limitations and
> immediately own it. you lie, make excuses, and attempt to dazzle us with
> -------- in hopes of hiding your blatent (sic) ignorance.

me:
You don't have a clue about your limitations... imagine you,
an HVAC tech, making pronouncements about atmospheric
science! That shows *extreme* hubris... you deserve what
you get.
</>

You deserve what you get... remember that.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42E08D98.8C4224C@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Stop it... I'm gonna hurl... *again*!
> >
> > Take a tablespoon of salt... put it in
> > the sun. Tell us when it degrades.
> > No fair letting it get wet... even though
> > that wouldn't degrade it.
> >
> > In fact, you'd have a hard time making
> > chlorine do anything but be chlorine.
> > Go ahead and try....
> >
> > Of course, the point is, chlorine can't
> > get to the stratosphere without being
> > bound up into a gaseous molecule
> > that is extremely strong... otherwise,
> > rain would precipitate it out. That's
> > the entire problem... chlorinated
> > fluorocarbons are highly insoluble
> > in water, and stay bound up until they
> > get to the upper atmosphere where
> > UV light can attack them.

> Well we've established you don't own a pool.

Another 'king of the non-sequiturs' gem! AAMOF,
I've spent *years* maintaining pools... there is a zen
to it. Have you ever found and repaired a concrete
pool leak, Bill? It's loads of fun... you use a syringe
and food coloring, then you use an electric jackhammer.
Then you use PVC pipe couplers... I had to make my
own slip fittings... Dremel is your friend. Ever heard
of diatomaceous earth? How about Polaris? Ever
killed a rat in a pool? Loads of fun... you *do* learn
to hate deciduous trees, and those funny Mayfly larvae
that are just the right size to get hung in the Polaris bag.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42E08D98.8C4224C@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Stop it... I'm gonna hurl... *again*!
> >
> > Take a tablespoon of salt... put it in
> > the sun. Tell us when it degrades.
> > No fair letting it get wet... even though
> > that wouldn't degrade it.
> >
> > In fact, you'd have a hard time making
> > chlorine do anything but be chlorine.
> > Go ahead and try....
> >
> > Of course, the point is, chlorine can't
> > get to the stratosphere without being
> > bound up into a gaseous molecule
> > that is extremely strong... otherwise,
> > rain would precipitate it out. That's
> > the entire problem... chlorinated
> > fluorocarbons are highly insoluble
> > in water, and stay bound up until they
> > get to the upper atmosphere where
> > UV light can attack them.

> Well we've established you don't own a pool.

Another 'king of the non-sequiturs' gem! AAMOF,
I've spent *years* maintaining pools... there is a zen
to it. Have you ever found and repaired a concrete
pool leak, Bill? It's loads of fun... you use a syringe
and food coloring, then you use an electric jackhammer.
Then you use PVC pipe couplers... I had to make my
own slip fittings... Dremel is your friend. Ever heard
of diatomaceous earth? How about Polaris? Ever
killed a rat in a pool? Loads of fun... you *do* learn
to hate deciduous trees, and those funny Mayfly larvae
that are just the right size to get hung in the Polaris bag.
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:42E08D98.8C4224C@***.net...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > Stop it... I'm gonna hurl... *again*!
> >
> > Take a tablespoon of salt... put it in
> > the sun. Tell us when it degrades.
> > No fair letting it get wet... even though
> > that wouldn't degrade it.
> >
> > In fact, you'd have a hard time making
> > chlorine do anything but be chlorine.
> > Go ahead and try....
> >
> > Of course, the point is, chlorine can't
> > get to the stratosphere without being
> > bound up into a gaseous molecule
> > that is extremely strong... otherwise,
> > rain would precipitate it out. That's
> > the entire problem... chlorinated
> > fluorocarbons are highly insoluble
> > in water, and stay bound up until they
> > get to the upper atmosphere where
> > UV light can attack them.

> Well we've established you don't own a pool.

Another 'king of the non-sequiturs' gem! AAMOF,
I've spent *years* maintaining pools... there is a zen
to it. Have you ever found and repaired a concrete
pool leak, Bill? It's loads of fun... you use a syringe
and food coloring, then you use an electric jackhammer.
Then you use PVC pipe couplers... I had to make my
own slip fittings... Dremel is your friend. Ever heard
of diatomaceous earth? How about Polaris? Ever
killed a rat in a pool? Loads of fun... you *do* learn
to hate deciduous trees, and those funny Mayfly larvae
that are just the right size to get hung in the Polaris bag.
__
Steve
..