134a Refrigerant
#901
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
And look where the Al Qaida are now. Isn't it neat to see them
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
screwing with their own, over their new democratic government and are no
longer capable of leading their --------- out side Iraq? Bush done good.
Why you people harp about oil, I never understand. It's always been
easier to buy it from our enemy, rather than produce the oil we have
inside our lower forty eight.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
> that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
> to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
> convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
> formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
> scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
> that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
> completely false.
>
> The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
> technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
> was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
> the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
> that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
> policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
> "irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
> they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
> liberate Iraq all along.
>
> The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
> yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
> NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
> Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
> been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
> Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
> investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
> revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
> conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
>
> The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
> Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
> to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
>
> That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
> military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
> Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
> be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
> do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
#902
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
#903
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
#904
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
#905
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
news:l1Gqe.2570$751.1598@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> it means,
> when you're shown evidence that your belief system
> is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
> necessary change into your beliefs.
like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show refrigerant
falls due to its weight. :-)
> and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
youve given NO evidence. youve given me nothing beyond "could be's" and you
beg us to believe you. your seminar tactics are worthless here.
> Why aren't we breathing 100%
> Argon, Nate?
concentration. look it up sometime.
> Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> you over the coals right now?
lol......certainly not you. :-)
> you seriously think he'd
> have given them to Iran?
i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network would
have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day those
weapons will surface HERE.
> I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
im sure all anti-american socialists do.
> Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> or put your cranium back in your culo.
you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven
speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be stupid
enough to fall for it.
> I don't see many links from you, btw...
you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a dozen
or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for refrigerant
leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. youve
YET to directly respond to those links i provided.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
__
Steve
..
#906
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#907
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#908
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#909
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:dkGqe.2575$751.698@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
>> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
> No they're not...
lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>
>> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".
>Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which CLEARLY
support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone in
doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond
directly. :-)
> > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom
> > under
> > electronic leak detectors:
> > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
> > refrigerants
> > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak
> > detecting
> > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective
> > in
> > detecting a leak and will save you time."
> >
> > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the
> > electronic
> > leak detector that i personally use)
> > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will
> > tend
> > to
> > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable
> > way
> > of finding such."
> Now you're cutting and pasting with no snip notice...
lol thats the best response you can form? :-) no surprise. the links are
there, if you dont like what i snipped feel free to read it.
>> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very
>> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.
> Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at dodging
my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your statements
further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you quite
hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)
> answer me
> this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the stratosphere.
> It ain't science, I can certify that.
thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent science.
theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.
> Engineers, Nate...
yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for you.
funny, huh? :-)
>> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)
> As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, ill
continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your
argument has become) :-)
> Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#910
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
Honestly, what I think we need now is a president who will disengage from
this mess in an honorable fashion. I don't think that is Bush, and I don't
think it would have been Kerry. The Tar Baby story,
<http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm>, comes to mind.
"Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn't talk and the Tar-Baby kept
on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and
blip--he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn't
pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer
Fox, he lay low.
"'If you don't let me loose, I'm going to hit you again,' says Brer Rabbit,
says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap--he hit the
Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too."
I love that story. It has some similarity to recent events. I am not
saying I would have ultimately invaded Iraq in Mr. Bush's place, and I am
not saying I would not have, either. I would have made damn sure I wasn't
hauling off to hit a Tar Baby though. Sadly, I don't think any Brer Fox is
going to come along and throw us into the briar patch where we perhaps
belong.
I quit the ambulance association shortly after I had to report the president
for mishandling a patient. Now I have the state nursing board investigating
him, and the board of medical examiners going after the medical director.
Silverton and San Juan County have about five medics now, where last summer
they had twenty-six. If you have lived in any small town, you can imagine
some of the sh*t that has gone down here. I may continue the paramedic
training at some future date, but for now I am getting ready to go to the
Basque Country to perfect my Spanish. If you come to this area, bring your
own first aid kit, know how to use it, and drive carefully.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB1763.B0CE3F41@***.net...
> Hi Earl,
> Good seeing you in here again.
> Something wrong with video: http://www.----------.com/badAtom.jpg
> I think everyone was fooled in including Bush, and don't you
> remember Kerry's flip, flops? And I believe there were weapons like the
> thousands of Kurds didn't just fall over by themselves, just that
> Hussein had time to move them to Syria.
> Did you get a job with the Paramedics you were retraining for?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > They're not my kids.
> >
> >
> > "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
> > Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you
> > can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17,
2002
> > You can find the video here.
> > http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
> >
> > Unfortunately, it appears that most of my compatriots can "get fooled
> > again", and again, and again. Another Republican said, "You can fool
some
> > of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time,
but
> > you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
> >
> > "The big problem" is that most of the people, most of the time, in my
> > country prefer to allow those in authority to think for them. It's not
your
> > fault if you're lied to, but it is your fault, in this world, if you
insist
> > on believing everything you hear.
> >
> > The other side lies too...
> >
> > Earle
this mess in an honorable fashion. I don't think that is Bush, and I don't
think it would have been Kerry. The Tar Baby story,
<http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm>, comes to mind.
"Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn't talk and the Tar-Baby kept
on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and
blip--he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn't
pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer
Fox, he lay low.
"'If you don't let me loose, I'm going to hit you again,' says Brer Rabbit,
says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap--he hit the
Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too."
I love that story. It has some similarity to recent events. I am not
saying I would have ultimately invaded Iraq in Mr. Bush's place, and I am
not saying I would not have, either. I would have made damn sure I wasn't
hauling off to hit a Tar Baby though. Sadly, I don't think any Brer Fox is
going to come along and throw us into the briar patch where we perhaps
belong.
I quit the ambulance association shortly after I had to report the president
for mishandling a patient. Now I have the state nursing board investigating
him, and the board of medical examiners going after the medical director.
Silverton and San Juan County have about five medics now, where last summer
they had twenty-six. If you have lived in any small town, you can imagine
some of the sh*t that has gone down here. I may continue the paramedic
training at some future date, but for now I am getting ready to go to the
Basque Country to perfect my Spanish. If you come to this area, bring your
own first aid kit, know how to use it, and drive carefully.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB1763.B0CE3F41@***.net...
> Hi Earl,
> Good seeing you in here again.
> Something wrong with video: http://www.----------.com/badAtom.jpg
> I think everyone was fooled in including Bush, and don't you
> remember Kerry's flip, flops? And I believe there were weapons like the
> thousands of Kurds didn't just fall over by themselves, just that
> Hussein had time to move them to Syria.
> Did you get a job with the Paramedics you were retraining for?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > They're not my kids.
> >
> >
> > "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
> > Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you
> > can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17,
2002
> > You can find the video here.
> > http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
> >
> > Unfortunately, it appears that most of my compatriots can "get fooled
> > again", and again, and again. Another Republican said, "You can fool
some
> > of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time,
but
> > you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
> >
> > "The big problem" is that most of the people, most of the time, in my
> > country prefer to allow those in authority to think for them. It's not
your
> > fault if you're lied to, but it is your fault, in this world, if you
insist
> > on believing everything you hear.
> >
> > The other side lies too...
> >
> > Earle