134a Refrigerant

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...
>> the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute!
>
> No scientist will. That's not how science works.

horse****. look up nuclear fusion and youll find its an absolute science
because its been proven.


> I have a college degree in science

lol.....some of the most ignorant fools ive ever happened across (lloyd
parker for example) have college degrees. it means jack ****. i dont even
have a high school diploma (i gotta GED before going to tech school) but ill
legally pull in over $80k this year. :-)


> I got the degree
> *after* topping out as a technician...

lol i can assure you that you never "topped out" as a technician. if you
did, lets see some credentials. NATE certification, EPA certification,
SOMETHING to establish you as a top tech. :-)


> I was Chief Site Tech at a $6M
> NRAO VLBA site

that supposed to be impressive? the equipment in this one room alone
http://7slotgrille.com/multimedia/working.wmv is nearly worth that. :-)


> http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/heavier.html

you left off one key point. ive already dismissed the EPA earlier in this
thread as a self serving whore who much continually find fault in order to
justify their own existance. please provide me with similar absolute
statements from an authoritative source and ill certainly go into it with an
open mind.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
m...
> Why bother? The whole point is, you confused
> Iraq with Afghanistan... just like Bush did.

wrong answer. can you not acknowledge that these young girls are now better
off than before the invasion? can you not acknowledge that its a good thing
they can no longer be raped at will by his sons?

> You bring up young girls raped just to
> try and cloud the issue

NO! i bring it up because its a VALID benefit which you wont even
recognize. that you refuse to recognize it clearly shows your agenda.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute!
> >
> > No scientist will. That's not how science works.
>
> horse****. look up nuclear fusion and youll find its an absolute science
> because its been proven.

It is a science of probabilities... you can't look at
a nucleus and tell when it will fuse... you have to
go with the probability that it will, given enough
density of radiation. It's that simple...

> > I have a college degree in science
>
> lol.....some of the most ignorant fools ive ever happened across (lloyd
> parker for example) have college degrees. it means jack ****. i dont
even
> have a high school diploma (i gotta GED before going to tech school) but
ill
> legally pull in over $80k this year. :-)

Doesn't make you a scientist, nor a good judge
of one. In fact, the opposite could be argued... : )
I went back to college at age 37, graduated at 40.
It could happen to you....

> > I got the degree
> > *after* topping out as a technician...
>
> lol i can assure you that you never "topped out" as a technician. if you
> did, lets see some credentials. NATE certification, EPA certification,
> SOMETHING to establish you as a top tech. :-)

EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA
cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner...

The ladder is different for electronic techs,
btw.. we don't go through a certification
process.... unless you go for RF. I chose
not to... I do carry an Amateur Extra Class
ham radio license... call sign KI5YG.

I spent the period between 1985-1990 doing
controls field-service on continuous-mix
asphalt plants... USA, then Europe. Probably
spent close to two years in England and
Western Europe.

> > I was Chief Site Tech at a $6M
> > NRAO VLBA site
>
> that supposed to be impressive? the equipment in this one room alone
> http://7slotgrille.com/multimedia/working.wmv is nearly worth that. :-)

Man, that's some boring film! Sorry I couldn't make it
through the whole thing... are you the Site Manager?
How many others on site?

Here's the array I worked with:

http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/

and an antenna tour (all antennas are identical)

http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/antennatour/

Pretty cool place to work... kinda remote, and
like I said, no place to get promoted to. The
only exciting times were when lightning strikes
hit... lots of troubleshooting then! Plenty of
systems to maintain... complete weather station,
cryo systems, DC drives, massive gearboxes,
multiple HVAC systems, generator and switch,
tape drives, Internet connections (in 1992!).
When I said 'topped out', it was not about
money... I got sick of being responsible for
the whole thing, two weeks a month on-call.
I'm much happier as a programmer-engineer...
much happier with the bits and bytes and
chips and transistors.

>
>
> > http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/heavier.html
>
> you left off one key point. ive already dismissed the EPA earlier in this
> thread as a self serving whore who much continually find fault in order to
> justify their own existance. please provide me with similar absolute
> statements from an authoritative source and ill certainly go into it with
an
> open mind.

I'm afraid you'll have to attack the message, not the
messenger... the science is well-understood, at least
by those that make a living at it. What about NOAA,
do you hate them too? Can you name one scientific
source that you would trust? You never gave a link
supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling,
don't you think?

Here's some more for you to chew on:

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/StratO3.html

<>
In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 10 and 50
kilometers (6-30 miles) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital
role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric
ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released
into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics
cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been
hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them
useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make
them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.
CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and
survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken
down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released
and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine
atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so
on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the
stratosphere by other processes.
</>
Now you're convinced, certainly!
__
Steve
not holding breath
..

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Congratulations, I was young and stupid once myself:
> http://www.billhughes.com/stevDegree.jpg

Go Lobos! Sul Ross, home of Intercollegiate
Rodeo! Thanks, Bill...

I graduated at age 40, btw... in 1998.
__
Steve
..

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

> Typical bleeding heart liberal, when confronted with facts, resort
> to name calling.

Bill... c'mon, it was funny! Are you denying that
you're an extreme right-wing zealot? Should we
have a straw poll among regular readers here?
I'd imagine that denying the ozone hole problem
would put you right up there with the biggies...
after all, nobody in any branch of our government
makes *that* claim! And look who's in charge!
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Why bother? The whole point is, you confused
> > Iraq with Afghanistan... just like Bush did.
>
> wrong answer. can you not acknowledge that these young girls are now
better
> off than before the invasion? can you not acknowledge that its a good
thing
> they can no longer be raped at will by his sons?

If you really cared about rape, instead of just
trying to save your face, you'd talk about the
big rape scene right now in Sudan. You
bring up this ochre anchovy in order to
try to get me to acknowledge that some
good has come from our invasion of Iraq.
It is an ill wind, indeed, that blows nobody
any good... and for the sake of argument,
I will say that the hypothetical women that
may have hypothetically have been raped
by the sons of Saddam just might be better
off today, than if they had been raped.
*If* they are still alive, and have not
died from effects of the invasion. Iraq is
a terrible, horrible place to live right now...
worse than when Saddam controlled it,
for the vast majority of people there.
You know *damn well* that we'd never
have gone in to save any young girls...
attributing any such goals to the invasion
is disengenuous... it's spinning, trying to
make an awful situation look better.
Our nation was damaged badly by
the 9/11 terrorists... but far more damage
has been done by the current administration.
We cannot afford to swing any weight
against Iran, North Korea, China, Sudan...
we're too extended, and military recruitment
is falling rapidly, while military spending
is spiraling out of control. The country's
going to hell in a handbasket, and you
want to talk about some young girls
getting raped... not because you care,
but because you think you can use this
as an emotional ploy. Yes, I'm glad that
Uday and Ofay (or whatever) are dead...
nobody on the planet deserved it more.
As long as that's all you look at, you
are doomed to participate in driving
America into the ground. The big picture,
Nate... you have to be willing to look at
the wide screen. And don't try to buy
sympathy for a failed invasion with
cloying talk about 'young girls'... by and
large, the planet would be much better
off with a few raped girls, and a hundred
thousand less dead Iraqis.

> > You bring up young girls raped just to
> > try and cloud the issue
>
> NO! i bring it up because its a VALID benefit which you wont even
> recognize. that you refuse to recognize it clearly shows your agenda.

'Valid benefit(s)' are worth what you pay for them,
right? Would killing mosquitos with nuclear weapons
count as a 'valid benefit'? Hundreds of thousands
must die, so that several young girls don't get raped?
Well, you must really be lining up to invade Sudan,
right? The Libertarian Ideal, being world police?
The thing is, I recognize the costs... you are just
looking for justification.
__
Steve
..

Without wishing to minimise the loss of the people who died at the hands of
the terrorist scum, you lost 2300 odd Americans and one building. I don't
think that counts as "badly damaging" a nation of 260,000,000 Americans and
lots of buildings. After all, 25,000 Americans get shot by other Americans
each yet and nearly 50,000 get killed driving a car (1/2 of which dont wear
seatbelts). We lost over 2000 people to the terrorist IRA (largely funded by
American citizens with delusions of the old country), and I've been at the
train station when their bombs went off ; its scary but part of life - the
last thing you need is massive media hysteria or talking about "badly
damaged".

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...

> Our nation was damaged badly by the 9/11 terrorists ... but far more
damage
has been done by the current administration.

OK... straw poll... Bill= informative, appreciated, and energetic, but for
sure right wing zealot. Steve= doing an OK job of holding down the
left-wing (not that there is one) fort: providing links, argueing nicely,
calling spades spades.

Advantage: Steve. The right is drunk with power right now and spouting
nonsensical lines fed to them by Rush et al. Pretty lame. The left is
cowering and shell-shocked and stunned that the SOB got re-elected but is
starting to prove that they are demonstratably correct on issues of the
enviroment and Iraq, not that reality seems to matter to conservatives.
Nonetheless, the truth is the truth.

The left has no balls. I hope we/they grow some soon and start calling it
as it really is. Bring on the revolution. Too bad the left is so
passive, unarmed, and gutless. The right has a swirling, ever-changing
lack of a true philosophy, indicative of a lack of moral compass, despite
their hypocritical assertations to the contrary, and seems intent on leading
us to a Christian apocolypse. Right-wing evangelical Christianity is
nothing less than cult behavior and should be mocked as such by anyone with
a brain.

That's what I think.

Carry on with your little flame war.

-jeff ('97 TJ, 4.0L, 5spd, 4.11's, True-Traks front and rear, 31" MTR's,
Warn 8000, Oly rock bumpers)

in article , Stephen Cowell at
wrote on 6/9/05 10:44 PM:

> Bill... c'mon, it was funny! Are you denying that
> you're an extreme right-wing zealot? Should we
> have a straw poll among regular readers here?

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > The word 'ozone' does not appear on that page...
> > neither do the words 'CFC, flouro-, chloro'...
> > you're just posting the first thing Google gives
> > you, like that crystal mysticism link. Find some
> > more of that crap, that was funny!
> >
> > I hear about *every* 'burp' the sun makes... I'm a ham,
> > remember?

> Chlorofluorocarbons, have been against the law to produce for over
> ten years, get over it!

Yes? And your point?

> And pray the Sun doesn't shot another solar flare in our direction:

*Especially* with (ham radio) Field Day
just around the corner... last thing we need
is a big, bad hit to the ionosphere.
__
Steve
..

I thought Bill pointed out that the poles were always shifting :-)

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Jeff Olsen" > wrote in message
...
> The right has a swirling, ever-changing lack of a true philosophy,
indicative of a lack of moral compass