On Aug 12, 5:19*am, Derek > wrote:

> > No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
> > that.
>
> According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
> your account?
>

Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.

On Aug 12, 5:24*am, Derek > wrote:

> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
> of our air.

So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
Funny how you never answer this.

Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.

> Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.

Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
better.

On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
> --scott

Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? <1%. Who
lives in and around cities? > 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
lose that one bigtime.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:19*am, Derek > wrote:
>
>>> No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
>>> that.
>>
>> According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
>> your account?
>>
>
> Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.

I give you "UV for killing bacteria in water" from alt.home.repair.

TinyURL link at: http://tinyurl.com/69n9nw

And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
tap water.

--
Derek

Never be afraid to share your dreams with the world.
Because there's nothing the world loves more than
the taste of really sweet dreams.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:24*am, Derek > wrote:
>
>> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
>> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
>> of our air.
>
> So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
> Funny how you never answer this.

Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
and comes back down as precipitation. It never stops being water.

> Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
> with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.

Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe. It
is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.

To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.

>> Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.
>
> Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
> better.

I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
simplified and scientifically incorrect.

There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
not making it.


--
Derek

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity." -- Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
>> --scott
>
> Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
> times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
> auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? <1%. Who
> lives in and around cities? > 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
> lose that one bigtime.

Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.
In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.

Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
a thousandfold difference.


--
Derek

Bigamy is carrying respectability to a criminal extreme.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, Derek rolled initiative and posted the following:

> Acid rain in the
> eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.

Apologies. That should read "eastern half of the United States"

--
Derek

Wisdom is knowing what to do with what you know.

On Aug 12, 5:19*pm, Derek > wrote:

> >>> No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
> >>> that.
>
> >> According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
> >> your account?

> > Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.
>
> I give you "UV for killing bacteria in water" from alt.home.repair.

That's my own post! ...and it's under Home Repair, a far cry from "TAP
WATER VS BOTTLED WATER."

> And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
> water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
> later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
> tap water.

and?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:19*pm, Derek > wrote:
>
>>>>> No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
>>>>> that.
>>
>>>> According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
>>>> your account?
>
>>> Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.
>>
>> I give you "UV for killing bacteria in water" from alt.home.repair.
>
> That's my own post! ...and it's under Home Repair, a far cry from "TAP
> WATER VS BOTTLED WATER."

Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.

>> And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
>> water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
>> later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
>> tap water.
>
> and?

And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".

Care to rephrase?


--
Derek

Stop searching forever. Happiness is just next to you.

On Aug 12, 5:33*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

> >> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
> >> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
> >> of our air.
>
> > So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
> > Funny how you never answer this.
>
> Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
> and comes back down as precipitation.

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
do you continue to duck this fact?

> It never stops being water.

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

> > Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
> > with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.
>
> Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe.

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
believe.

> It is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.

What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into
the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and
popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating
yourself!


> To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.

B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

> >> Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.
>
> > Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
> > better.
>
> I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
> simplified and scientifically incorrect.

I'll ask you again to spell them out.

> There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
> not making it.

B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

On Aug 12, 5:41*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> > On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
> >> --scott
>
> > Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
> > times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
> > auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? <1%. Who
> > lives in and around cities? > 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
> > lose that one bigtime.
>
> Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.

The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was
that auto pollution > coal factory pollution. However the levels are
the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it
dissipates to lower levels.

> In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
> eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
> Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.

The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

> Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
> carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
> 513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
> be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
> a thousandfold difference.

Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still
right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000
fold or more. Nice try.
If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out
the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use
daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful
chemicals.

On Aug 12, 6:57*pm, Derek > wrote:

> Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
> the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.

No, I meant no "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" NG exists. That's been my
contention all along. Furthermore, why would anyone half sane provide
a source which is my own ??

> >> And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
> >> water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
> >> later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
> >> tap water.
>
> > and?
>
> And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
> said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".

And?
What has one to do with the other ??

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:33*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
>
>>>> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
>>>> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
>>>> of our air.
>>
>>> So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
>>> Funny how you never answer this.
>>
>> Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
>> and comes back down as precipitation.
>
> "Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
> some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
> do you continue to duck this fact?

I don't "duck" this fact. I argue that vaporization of water is
insufficient for the creation of "air." It's only a small part of what
we breathe, given that over 99% of what we breathe is something else.

>> It never stops being water.
>
> Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.

>>> Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
>>> with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.
>>
>> Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe.
>
> Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
> the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
> much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
> believe.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

>> It is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.
>
> What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into
> the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and
> popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating
> yourself!

I said that water vapor mixes with air. You're arguing the opposite.
It's a matter of capacity and quantity. You can't a large volume into
something of lesser volume.

>> To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.
>
> B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

Because I'm not an astrophysicist.

You argue that vaporized water produced our air. Yet water requires
the gases hydrogen and oxygen. They had to be around first before they
could combine to form water.

What you're arguing is potentially circular, and logically flawed.

>>>> Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.
>>
>>> Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
>>> better.
>>
>> I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
>> simplified and scientifically incorrect.
>
> I'll ask you again to spell them out.

I have. Repeatedly.
>
>> There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
>> not making it.
>
> B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

Throwing insults isn't backing yourself up.

--
Derek

"Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a
vigorous mind." -- Samuel Johnson

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:41*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
>> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>>> On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>> I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
>>>> --scott
>>
>>> Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
>>> times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
>>> auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? <1%. Who
>>> lives in and around cities? > 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
>>> lose that one bigtime.
>>
>> Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.
>
> The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was
> that auto pollution > coal factory pollution. However the levels are
> the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it
> dissipates to lower levels.

Are you suggesting that I, too, am a goof? It's certainly arguable
given the time I've put into this discussion.

>> In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
>> eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
>> Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.
>
> The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

That, I can agree with.

>> Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
>> carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
>> 513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
>> be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
>> a thousandfold difference.
>
> Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still
> right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000
> fold or more. Nice try.

My figures come from the US Department of Energy, as reported by
mindfully.org. What are yours but opinion and hyperbole?

Asserting that you're still right even if figures prove you wrong
isn't science. It's dogma... again.

> If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out
> the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use
> daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful
> chemicals.

This statement proves nothing except that you're too busy to back up
your assertions.

--
Derek

If a kiss speaks volumes, it is seldom a first edition.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 6:57*pm, Derek > wrote:
>
>> Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
>> the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.
>
> No, I meant no "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" NG exists. That's been my
> contention all along. Furthermore, why would anyone half sane provide
> a source which is my own ??

No one said that "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" existed as a newsgroup.
Look up "straw man."

As for why I'd provide a source that was your own, consider that you
claimed said source didn't exist. I've proved that it does.

>>>> And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
>>>> water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
>>>> later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
>>>> tap water.
>>
>>> and?
>>
>> And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
>> said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".
>
> And?
> What has one to do with the other ??

I'm just acknowledging the facts as evident in a thread at
alt.home.repair - a thread that you claimed doesn't exist.

--
Derek

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped." -- Elbert Hubbard

On Aug 12, 7:39 pm, Derek > wrote:

>I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

Now it's insufficient?! So now you agree that I'm partly right. Pretty
soon you'll be in full agreement with my first view lol.


> >>>> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
> >>>> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
> >>>> of our air.
>
> >>> So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
> >>> Funny how you never answer this.
>
> >> Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
> >> and comes back down as precipitation.
>
> > "Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
> > some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
> > do you continue to duck this fact?
>
> I don't "duck" this fact.
>I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

You've just ducked it again. You won't admit that a portion of what we
breathe is evaporated air! Admit I'm right and be done with it.

> >> It never stops being water.
>
> > Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).
>
> Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
> Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.
Wrong again. Didn't you do this experiment in highschool? Maybe you
haven't got that far yet. It's about grade 7. Heat a pint of water in
a kettle with a huge balloon tied to the spout. The balloon will
quickly fill so big it bursts. Stop before it bursts. Let it condense.
The water will pool. Drain the water. What's left? You tell me.

Don't play footsie here, answer the question.

> > Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
> > the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
> > much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
> > believe.
>
> All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
> suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

Who said it did?

> I said that water vapor mixes with air.
Where? That was my argument almost word for word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude what you been smoking? Honestly.

I can't waste more time with you. You win! I give up. I cry uncle. At
least you've been ontopic and I thank you for that.

I'll wait for someone else to take the batton from you.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 7:39 pm, Derek > wrote:
>
>>I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."
>
> Now it's insufficient?! So now you agree that I'm partly right. Pretty
> soon you'll be in full agreement with my first view lol.

By "insufficient," I mean "wholly insufficient." I'm not likely to
agree with your first view.

>>>>>> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
>>>>>> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
>>>>>> of our air.
>>
>>>>> So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
>>>>> Funny how you never answer this.
>>
>>>> Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
>>>> and comes back down as precipitation.
>>
>>> "Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
>>> some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
>>> do you continue to duck this fact?
>>
>> I don't "duck" this fact.
>>I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."
>
> You've just ducked it again. You won't admit that a portion of what we
> breathe is evaporated air! Admit I'm right and be done with it.

No, I don't read further down.

>>>> It never stops being water.
>>
>>> Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).
>>
>> Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
>> Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.

> Wrong again. Didn't you do this experiment in highschool? Maybe you
> haven't got that far yet. It's about grade 7. Heat a pint of water in
> a kettle with a huge balloon tied to the spout. The balloon will
> quickly fill so big it bursts. Stop before it bursts. Let it condense.
> The water will pool. Drain the water. What's left? You tell me.

Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

But it never stops being water.

> Don't play footsie here, answer the question.

That sounds like a line from "A Few Good Men."

>>> Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
>>> the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
>>> much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
>>> believe.
>>
>> All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>>
>> Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
>> suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.
>
> Who said it did?

You, with your assertion that water boiling on hot lava gave us air.

>> I said that water vapor mixes with air.

> Where? That was my argument almost word for word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Dude what you been smoking? Honestly.

No. It's the reverse of your argument. You cannot mix a larger volume
into a smaller one. The devil is in the details.

He also, apparently, went down to Georgia.

> I can't waste more time with you. You win! I give up. I cry uncle. At
> least you've been ontopic and I thank you for that.

Actually, I've been completely off-topic, as nothing I've written in
response to you is about tea.

> I'll wait for someone else to take the batton from you.

They can pry the baton out of my cold, dead hand.

--
Derek

Nice guys get sick.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, Derek rolled initiative and posted the following:

> No, I don't read further down.

Danged grammar errors. I meant, "No, I don't. Read further down."

Nertz.
--
Derek

"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide
stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork." -- Edward Abbey

On Aug 12, 8:11*pm, Derek > wrote:
>Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
>as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
>down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.

You like being wrong a lot huh. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm
getting tired of proving you wrong.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 8:11*pm, Derek > wrote:
>>Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
>>as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
>>down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.
>
> Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
> because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.

You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."

> You like being wrong a lot huh. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm
> getting tired of proving you wrong.

I'm just getting tired.

--
Derek

Troutman's Fourth Postulate: Interchangeable tapes won't.

On Aug 8, 1:15 pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:

> Almost all bottled water comes from those very same taps you find
> troublesome just around the country. They filter the water and bottle
> it. You can do the very same.
> - Dominic

Where did you get this information from?
Answer: Plucked From Air. No one could ever know this without first
working for EVERY bottled water company on the planet.

< ALMOST ALL ..
So where does the rest come from? Funny how you leave as many
questions as those you respond to.

On Aug 12, 8:34*pm, Derek > wrote:

> > Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
> > because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.
>
> You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."

No, I meant quantity. After the balloon is emptied of water, less than
5% of the original water is left over and the balloon is full of ?
Answer the ?

> I'm just getting tired.

Ok honest confession, but are you always this tired? Somebody get him
a doctor.
Not enough clean air is my first prognosis.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 8:34*pm, Derek > wrote:
>
>>> Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
>>> because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.
>>
>> You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."
>
> No, I meant quantity. After the balloon is emptied of water, less than
> 5% of the original water is left over and the balloon is full of ?
> Answer the ?

That is a COMPLETELY different proposition than the one you wrote
previously. "[T]he balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water"
is not the same as "less than 5% of the original water is left over."
Please stick to a point rather than "correcting" me by changing the
issue.

In answer to your question, the balloon on the flask (we didn't use a
kettle) is not a closed system. We recovered less water than we boiled
because much of it pushed its way through the porous rubber of the
balloon. (Ever noticed that helium balloon shrink? It's because they
leak, not because helium gets more dense.)

The balloon eventually inverted under air pressure and was "sucked"
into the flask because there was less water and air in the system
after the experiment.

All of this is tangential to the point I'm challenging. Boiling water
does not cause it to "shed oxygen." Both oxygen and hydrogen are
highly reactive and quickly bond back together. That's why elecrolysis
requires two separate capturing vessels (as well as a catalyst).

Certainly, boiling water "frees" dissolved gasses that were in the
water. But their volume is significantly less than the volume of the
water in which they were previously dissolved.

>> I'm just getting tired.
>
> Ok honest confession, but are you always this tired? Somebody get him
> a doctor.
> Not enough clean air is my first prognosis.

Actually, it was just late.

--
Derek

It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any
to just sit there with a dumb look on your face.

Derek:

I think that no matter what way you put it, this is a losing argument,
the details will never get through his tinfoil hat and spark that
moment of comprehension...

Steve:

Out of curiosity - where are your facts cited from regarding pollution
rates of cars vs. ships? Can you please point me to the scientific
studies showing the reduction in pollution rates of hybrid cars, taking
into account the carbon costs of the production of these vehicles? You
insult others for not backing themselves up, so please do so yourself.

On 2008-08-13 07:24:16 -0400, Derek > said:

> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
>> On Aug 12, 8:34*pm, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
>>>> because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.
>>>
>>> You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."
>>
>> No, I meant quantity. After the balloon is emptied of water, less than
>> 5% of the original water is left over and the balloon is full of ?
>> Answer the ?
>
> That is a COMPLETELY different proposition than the one you wrote
> previously. "[T]he balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water"
> is not the same as "less than 5% of the original water is left over."
> Please stick to a point rather than "correcting" me by changing the
> issue.
>
> In answer to your question, the balloon on the flask (we didn't use a
> kettle) is not a closed system. We recovered less water than we boiled
> because much of it pushed its way through the porous rubber of the
> balloon. (Ever noticed that helium balloon shrink? It's because they
> leak, not because helium gets more dense.)
>
> The balloon eventually inverted under air pressure and was "sucked"
> into the flask because there was less water and air in the system
> after the experiment.
>
> All of this is tangential to the point I'm challenging. Boiling water
> does not cause it to "shed oxygen." Both oxygen and hydrogen are
> highly reactive and quickly bond back together. That's why elecrolysis
> requires two separate capturing vessels (as well as a catalyst).
>
> Certainly, boiling water "frees" dissolved gasses that were in the
> water. But their volume is significantly less than the volume of the
> water in which they were previously dissolved.
>
>>> I'm just getting tired.
>>
>> Ok honest confession, but are you always this tired? Somebody get him
>> a doctor.
>> Not enough clean air is my first prognosis.
>
> Actually, it was just late.


--
Cheers

Mike

On Aug 13, 5:11*am, Mike Morton > wrote:
> Derek:
>
> I think that no matter what way you put it, this is a losing argument,
> the details will never get through his tinfoil hat and spark that
> moment of comprehension...

Mike:

When I said let someone else take over the debate, I didn't mean
another slanderous empty argument troll take over.

>
> Steve:
>
> Out of curiosity - where are your facts cited from regarding pollution
> rates of cars vs. ships? *Can you please point me to the scientific *
> studies showing the reduction in pollution rates of hybrid cars, taking
> into account the carbon costs of the production of these vehicles?

Mike:

Pure logic for one. Critical thinking for two. Opening my eyes for
three. Plug in the known data:

Using the west coast for example, how many ships are there? (ballpark
is good enough). Go to a busy harbor and guesstimate. 50? 100? How
many harbors are there? 100 down the west coast tops. 100X100=10,000
tops. How many cars are there (ballpark). In Los Angeles county, there
are more than one car per person! >5,000,000 cars. How many cars in
western states? Why the struggle with this? Grade two math.

> You insult others for not backing themselves up, so please do so yourself..

Grow a pair of eyes and count the insults thrown at me vs ones thrown
back.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August
13, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 13, 5:11*am, Mike Morton > wrote:

<SNIP>

>> You insult others for not backing themselves up, so please do so yourself.
>
> Grow a pair of eyes and count the insults thrown at me vs ones thrown
> back.

I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have
avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like. In
fact, I've actually spent time looking up facts and figures to make
sure that I got them right rather than pulling them out of some faded
memory.

You, on the other hand, have not done likewise. So playing the
insulted victim seems like a case of a pot not looking in the mirror
before commenting on the kettle's sooty exterior.

--
Derek

A heavy purse makes a light heart. (Irish proverb)

On Aug 13, 5:49*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August
> 13, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
> following:
>
> > On Aug 13, 5:11*am, Mike Morton > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> You insult others for not backing themselves up, so please do so yourself.
>
> > Grow a pair of eyes and count the insults thrown at me vs ones thrown
> > back.
>
> I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have
> avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like.

Short memory.

> In
> fact, I've actually spent time looking up facts and figures to make
> sure that I got them right rather than pulling them out of some faded
> memory.

Confirmed.

>
> You, on the other hand, have not done likewise. So playing the
> insulted victim seems like a case of a pot not looking in the mirror
> before commenting on the kettle's sooty exterior.

Oh contrar, you've yet to answer one of my questions. I'll try one
last time. What's in the balloon after the water is allowed to strain
off?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August
13, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 13, 5:49*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August
>> 13, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
>> following:
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 5:11*am, Mike Morton > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> You insult others for not backing themselves up, so please do so yourself.
>>
>>> Grow a pair of eyes and count the insults thrown at me vs ones thrown
>>> back.
>>
>> I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have
>> avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like.
>
> Short memory.

Actually, it's rather long. I inherited my father's ability to hold
grudges.

>> In
>> fact, I've actually spent time looking up facts and figures to make
>> sure that I got them right rather than pulling them out of some faded
>> memory.
>
> Confirmed.
>
>>
>> You, on the other hand, have not done likewise. So playing the
>> insulted victim seems like a case of a pot not looking in the mirror
>> before commenting on the kettle's sooty exterior.
>
> Oh contrar, you've yet to answer one of my questions. I'll try one
> last time. What's in the balloon after the water is allowed to strain
> off?

You're avoiding the issue. I never suggested that someone reading this
group doesn't have the brains to be insulted. Care to guess who wrote
that statement and to whom it was directed?

If you strain the condensed water out of the balloon, you've got an
empty balloon. But even that isn't the answer to your question about
why only 5% of the water remains.

I answered that question. Whether or not you can be bothered to read
my answer is up to you.

--
Derek

Communism is like one big phone company. (Lenny Bruce)

On Aug 13, 7:38*pm, Derek > wrote:

> >> I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have
> >> avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like.
>
> > Short memory.
>
> Actually, it's rather long. I inherited my father's ability to hold
> grudges.

I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?

> > Oh contrar, you've yet to answer one of my questions. I'll try one
> > last time. What's in the balloon after the water is allowed to strain
> > off?
>
> You're avoiding the issue. I never suggested that someone reading this
> group doesn't have the brains to be insulted. Care to guess who wrote
> that statement and to whom it was directed?

Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the
others thrown at me? I don't have the time.

> If you strain the condensed water out of the balloon, you've got an
> empty balloon. But even that isn't the answer to your question about
> why only 5% of the water remains.

No, the balloon was still full. Can't you read or is it your short
term memory at work?

> I answered that question. Whether or not you can be bothered to read
> my answer is up to you.

I did, and nope, not even a half effort. Straight "Fs". Good work.

Like I said, I'll wait for someone else to handle a man's job.
Evidently not too many who have read this thread disagree with me.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August
14, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 13, 7:38*pm, Derek > wrote:
>
>>>> I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have
>>>> avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like.
>>
>>> Short memory.
>>
>> Actually, it's rather long. I inherited my father's ability to hold
>> grudges.
>
> I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
> question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?

Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered
through various ideas rather than staying focused, I'd like to suggest
that you stay away from accusations of ADD.

>>> Oh contrar, you've yet to answer one of my questions. I'll try one
>>> last time. What's in the balloon after the water is allowed to strain
>>> off?
>>
>> You're avoiding the issue. I never suggested that someone reading this
>> group doesn't have the brains to be insulted. Care to guess who wrote
>> that statement and to whom it was directed?
>
> Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the
> others thrown at me? I don't have the time.

I am not responsible for what others have "thrown" at you. Neither
does the misbehavior of others taint my response.

>> If you strain the condensed water out of the balloon, you've got an
>> empty balloon. But even that isn't the answer to your question about
>> why only 5% of the water remains.
>
> No, the balloon was still full. Can't you read or is it your short
> term memory at work?

Then we're talking about two different experiments. If you've actually
read what I wrote, you could have noted this already.

>> I answered that question. Whether or not you can be bothered to read
>> my answer is up to you.
>
> I did, and nope, not even a half effort. Straight "Fs". Good work.

If I was wrong, then tell me why. Repeatedly declaring that my
description is incorrect doesn't make it true.

I'm willing to admit being wrong when it's proven so. Declaring it to
be so, however, isn't proof.

> Like I said, I'll wait for someone else to handle a man's job.
> Evidently not too many who have read this thread disagree with me.

Silence from others does not prove their agreement with you. In fact,
the only comments posted by others in the discussion between you and I
have been disparaging of you, not of me.

--
Derek

A rolling stone gathers momentum.

On Aug 14, 5:00*am, Derek > wrote:
> > I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
> > question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?
>
> Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered
> through various ideas rather than staying focused,

I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
miander.

>I'd like to suggest
>that you stay away from accusations of ADD.

Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.

> > Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the
> > others thrown at me? I don't have the time.
>
> I am not responsible for what others have "thrown" at you. Neither
> does the misbehavior of others taint my response.

I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as
in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument
lol.
It's difficult not to throw in a few appropriate insults your way on
occasion. At least you cannot knock me for being accurate.

> Then we're talking about two different experiments. If you've actually
> read what I wrote, you could have noted this already.

Later troll. Let someone else take up the challenge. Your well is dry.
Meanwhile do the balloon test for yourself.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August
14, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 14, 5:00*am, Derek > wrote:
>>> I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
>>> question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?
>>
>> Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered
>> through various ideas rather than staying focused,
>
> I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
> miander.

And yet, you've still not answered the question I first posed. You
responded with a reference about a junior high experiment. But you
haven't yet explained how a physical reaction could have produced an
outcome only capable by a chemical reaction.

>>I'd like to suggest
>>that you stay away from accusations of ADD.
>
> Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.

If I've been meandering, it's because I've been following you.

>>> Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the
>>> others thrown at me? I don't have the time.
>>
>> I am not responsible for what others have "thrown" at you. Neither
>> does the misbehavior of others taint my response.
>
> I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as
> in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument
> lol.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Assuming it is there doesn't make it
so. And the reality is you still haven't answered the question I asked
at the very beginning of our interaction.

You've danced around it and expected me to answer it for you.

> It's difficult not to throw in a few appropriate insults your way on
> occasion. At least you cannot knock me for being accurate.

You've already been proven to misrepresent others' statements and
twist them to your benefit. Accuracy hasn't been your strong suit.

>> Then we're talking about two different experiments. If you've actually
>> read what I wrote, you could have noted this already.
>
> Later troll. Let someone else take up the challenge. Your well is dry.
> Meanwhile do the balloon test for yourself.

You've made a claim that you're unwilling, or unable, to support. If
you will not answer the question, it suggests that you actually cannot
support your argument.

You may call me a troll, if you like. It still doesn't mean you know
what you're writing about.

--
Derek

"Genius without education is like silver in the mine." -- Benjamin
Franklin

On Aug 14, 9:41*am, Derek > wrote:
> > I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
> > miander.
>
> And yet, you've still not answered the question I first posed. You
> responded with a reference about a junior high experiment. But you
> haven't yet explained how a physical reaction could have produced an
> outcome only capable by a chemical reaction.

Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

> > Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.
>
> If I've been meandering, it's because I've been following you.

RTFLAO!

> > I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as
> > in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument
> > lol.
>
> Asserting it doesn't make it so.

No assertions, test results young lad. Where's your data?

> Assuming it is there doesn't make it
> so. And the reality is you still haven't answered the question I asked
> at the very beginning of our interaction.

Get busy.

>
> You've danced around it and expected me to answer it for you.

Yeah I got "dance to the music" on my ipod. Psych.

>
> > It's difficult not to throw in a few appropriate insults your way on
> > occasion. At least you cannot knock me for being accurate.

Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.

>
> You've already been proven to misrepresent others' statements and
> twist them to your benefit. Accuracy hasn't been your strong suit.

more bla

> > Meanwhile do the balloon test for yourself.
>
> You've made a claim that you're unwilling, or unable, to support. If
> you will not answer the question, it suggests that you actually cannot
> support your argument.

Do the bloody test and shut up.

>
> You may call me a troll, if you like. It still doesn't mean you know
> what you're writing about.

That's what you are.

> "Genius without education is like silver in the mine."

Agree. Sharpen those drill bits and load the explosives. Do the ballon
test. BFN.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August
14, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 14, 9:41*am, Derek > wrote:
>>> I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
>>> miander.
>>
>> And yet, you've still not answered the question I first posed. You
>> responded with a reference about a junior high experiment. But you
>> haven't yet explained how a physical reaction could have produced an
>> outcome only capable by a chemical reaction.
>
> Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a
physical reaction, huh?

>>> Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.
>>
>> If I've been meandering, it's because I've been following you.
>
> RTFLAO!
>
>>> I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as
>>> in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument
>>> lol.
>>
>> Asserting it doesn't make it so.
>
> No assertions, test results young lad. Where's your data?
>
>> Assuming it is there doesn't make it
>> so. And the reality is you still haven't answered the question I asked
>> at the very beginning of our interaction.
>
> Get busy.

Doing what? Your work for you?

>> You've danced around it and expected me to answer it for you.
>
> Yeah I got "dance to the music" on my ipod. Psych.
>
>>
>>> It's difficult not to throw in a few appropriate insults your way on
>>> occasion. At least you cannot knock me for being accurate.
>
> Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.

Answer my original question and prove me wrong, and I'll do the test
following your specifications.

>> You've already been proven to misrepresent others' statements and
>> twist them to your benefit. Accuracy hasn't been your strong suit.
>
> more bla

Condescending toward my assertion doesn't make it wrong.


>>> Meanwhile do the balloon test for yourself.
>>
>> You've made a claim that you're unwilling, or unable, to support. If
>> you will not answer the question, it suggests that you actually cannot
>> support your argument.
>
> Do the bloody test and shut up.

See above.

>> You may call me a troll, if you like. It still doesn't mean you know
>> what you're writing about.
>
> That's what you are.
>
>> "Genius without education is like silver in the mine."
>
> Agree. Sharpen those drill bits and load the explosives. Do the ballon
> test. BFN.

What's the problem? Are you incapable of answering my original
question? All else in this thread stems from your assertion that steam
is air. Answer my question and prove me wrong.

But answer it directly. This isn't Athens and you're not Socrates.

--
Derek

"Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a
vigorous mind." -- Samuel Johnson

On Aug 14, 4:06*pm, Derek > wrote:
>
> > Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.
>
> Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a
> physical reaction, huh?

No. Neither can you.

>
> Doing what? Your work for you?
No lazy ass. I've done it. Get those eyes checked.


> > Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.
>
> Answer my original question and prove me wrong, and I'll do the test
> following your specifications.

When? 2012?

> > more bla
>
> Condescending toward my assertion doesn't make it wrong.

Instead of wasting your life away typing, go to Michaels for a
balloon.

> >> You may call me a troll, if you like. It still doesn't mean you know
> >> what you're writing about.
>
> > That's what you are.

Proof positive.

> What's the problem? Are you incapable of answering my original
> question? All else in this thread stems from your assertion that steam
> is air. Answer my question and prove me wrong.

I posted the (only) original question.

> But answer it directly. This isn't Athens and you're not Socrates.

Do your test and you'll answer it for yourself. And stop wasting time
here.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August
14, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 14, 4:06*pm, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>> Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.
>>
>> Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a
>> physical reaction, huh?
>
> No. Neither can you.

I'm not the one who claimed that it happened when water meets lava.
You made the claim. I challenged it. It's not up to me to prove me
wrong.

>> Doing what? Your work for you?
> No lazy ass. I've done it. Get those eyes checked.
>
>>> Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.
>>
>> Answer my original question and prove me wrong, and I'll do the test
>> following your specifications.
>
> When? 2012?

Since you apparently can't answer my question, I guess we'll never
know.

>>> more bla
>>
>> Condescending toward my assertion doesn't make it wrong.
>
> Instead of wasting your life away typing, go to Michaels for a
> balloon.

I don't even have to leave the house. Come on. Prove me wrong and I'll
get the kettle cooking.

>>>> You may call me a troll, if you like. It still doesn't mean you know
>>>> what you're writing about.
>>
>>> That's what you are.
>
> Proof positive.

You might want to pay attention to quotation indicators. You just
replied to yourself.

>> What's the problem? Are you incapable of answering my original
>> question? All else in this thread stems from your assertion that steam
>> is air. Answer my question and prove me wrong.
>
> I posted the (only) original question.

And yet, you can't answer mine.

>> But answer it directly. This isn't Athens and you're not Socrates.
>
> Do your test and you'll answer it for yourself. And stop wasting time
> here.

I know the answer. You've yet to demonstrate that you do. Answer the
question.

--
Derek

"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the
lesson afterwards. -- Vernon Sanders Law

On Aug 14, 5:49*pm, Derek > wrote:
> a whole bunch of drool
> Derek

The more you should be conducting your test, the more you wanna
continue with your same boring meaningless drool.

Give it a rest and do the test.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August
14, 2008, rolled initiative and posted the
following:

> On Aug 14, 5:49*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> a whole bunch of drool
>> Derek
>
> The more you should be conducting your test, the more you wanna
> continue with your same boring meaningless drool.
>
> Give it a rest and do the test.

I gave a simple condition for getting me to do the test. It shouldn't
take more than a small paragraph if you're actually right.

--
Derek

Even a hawk is an eagle among crows.

> I gave a simple condition for getting me to do the test. It shouldn't
> take more than a small paragraph if you're actually right.
> Derek
> Even a hawk is an eagle among crows.

Still stalling hawk? Is this a confession that I'm right?

On 2008-08-15, > wrote:
[drivel, as usual]

Are you this much of a ****wit in real life, too?


N.