134a Refrigerant

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
m...

> Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.

which is what you tell yourself to justify having none.


> Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?

its both. i am a libertarian politically but im also a parent and put the
welfare of my children ahead of all else. these dirty little *******s are
raised to hate americans, taught to kill americans, etc. if they do not
wish to coexist in peace there is only one alternative as far as im
concerned....natural selection.


> Can u see why I think your brain is a mess?

TRANSLATION --> "your thinking is beyond my ability to grasp" :-)


>> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?

> We'll never know

what a cop-out! you said the "price was to high". i asked a very
reasonable question and you throw some bull**** out which clearly shows you
havent even tried to think it through and are simply spouting what youve
been taught to say to promote your political agenda. PITIFUL!


> the Space Cowboy rode
> in from Dodge City and shot the place up.

dont mess with texas. :-)


> Everyone knows that they *did*
> exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.

yup! he handed them over to someone as evil as he was and i have no doubt
that he would have gotten them back (or made more) after the heat was off.
look at how many chances he was given over the last decade!


> If
> Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
> it would have been brilliant

it would have been stupid because it would have done nothing more than start
another decade like the last one.


> http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/

lol.....youre REALLY going to quote something with "proudliberal" in the url
as a credible source of information? BUWHAHA!

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

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> m...
>=20
> > Oh, 'integrity' =3D=3D 'sheeple'.
>=20
> which is what you tell yourself to justify having none.

I'll tell you what 'integrity' means to me... it means,=20
when you're shown evidence that your belief system
is wrong, or needs change, you accomodate that
necessary change into your beliefs. Now what does
this say about *your* belief system about Freon,
and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
I'll give you a clue... it shows you have no integrity.
=20
> > Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
>=20
> its both.=20

(SNIP) No, it's not, and your copout is noted. You're
either over there liberating them, or not. You cry about
'young girls'... codswallop. Your true colors show...
very ugly colors too.

>=20
>=20
> > Can u see why I think your brain is a mess?
>=20
> TRANSLATION --> "your thinking is beyond my ability to grasp" :-)

You said it, I didn't.... but of course, it's obvious
that this is true. Why aren't we breathing 100%=20
Argon, Nate?

=20
> >> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" =
price?
>=20
> > We'll never know
>=20
> what a cop-out! you said the "price was to high". i asked a very=20
> reasonable question and you throw some bull**** out which clearly =
shows you=20
> havent even tried to think it through and are simply spouting what =
youve=20
> been taught to say to promote your political agenda. PITIFUL!

Ironic, ain't it? The self-referential paragraph, I
mean...

Saddam could still be over there,
I wouldn't care that much. I really would like to
see bin Ladin torched, and Afghanistan cleaned
up... but no, that won't happen now, or for a=20
long time. Iraq got priority... for no good reason.

=20
> > the Space Cowboy rode
> > in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
>=20
> dont mess with texas. :-)

Who the f*ck do you think is raking
you over the coals right now? Texas
born and bred, buddy... *with* a
brain, and a heart too.
=20
> > Everyone knows that they *did*
> > exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
>=20
> yup! he handed them over to someone as evil as he was and i have no =
doubt=20
> that he would have gotten them back (or made more) after the heat was =
off.=20
> look at how many chances he was given over the last decade!

And monkees fly out of your ears every
other Wednesday... you seriously think he'd
have given them to Iran? And you think *any*
of his neighbors would give them back?
Fool.

> > If
> > Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
> > it would have been brilliant
>=20
> it would have been stupid because it would have done nothing more than =
start=20
> another decade like the last one.

I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
one of the best on record, as a matter of fact. When did
it all go to ****? Pretty plain!
=20
> > http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
>=20
> lol.....youre REALLY going to quote something with "proudliberal" in =
the url=20
> as a credible source of information? BUWHAHA!

Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
or put your cranium back in your culo. I don't see many
links from you, btw...=20
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> ...
>=20
> > How the hell would you know?
>=20
> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".

No they're not...

> > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
> > looking, anyway.
>=20
> personal attacks give you no credibility.

Having no knowledge of science is helping
you... not.
=20
> > You don't get it, and I'm not going to
> > waste much more breath trying to make you
> > get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.
>=20
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided".

Selective reading is a trait we don't share...=20
if you can't read, how can I hope to change
that?

> > 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=20
> > 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...

> > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
> > ones that design and build the systems
>=20
> hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-) =


Well, let's go back to a part you snipped:
<>
Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do. =20
</>

So I guess that I do know who wrote the manuals,
and even took pains to tell you this... and you
didn't notice! Cain't reed!

> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the =
very=20
> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight.

Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy... answer me
this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.

> > you are only qualified
> > to leak-check.
>=20
> lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give =
you NO=20
> credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, =
or=20
> what level of OEM training i have.

It ain't science, I can certify that. Face it...
you're just a tech. Engineers, Nate...=20
*Eennnnngiiinnneeeersssss*.... you must
bow down before them. You load the
gas they specify.... you hone the cylinder
they designed. Haven't you ever looked up
at the heavens and wondered 'where do all
these wonderful systems I maintain come from'?
They *damn* sure didnt' come from some
unschooled hack tech who won't or doesn't
understand the basic scientific principles
behind gas theory, or thermodynamics.

>=20
> > you are like the altar-boy,
> > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest
>=20
> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. =
:-)

As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.

> > rest assured
> > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
> > of distribution, much better than you do.
>=20
> ....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-)

Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.

> > Well, I can assure you that Freon
> > *mixes* just like all the others.
>=20
> and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before.

Yes! The atmosphere, as a whole, gets heavier!
I *knew* you could stretch your brain around
this complex idea, if I just kept hammering!

> .....like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-)

You forgot to add 'with wet powder and
styrofoam shot, and no trigger finger,
and blind'...
__
Steve
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
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
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...
>> 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

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> 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.
>=20
> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show =
refrigerant=20
> falls due to its weight. =20

Higher Knowlege... not for you.
=20
> > and the overwhelming evidence that I presented?
>=20
> 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.

Science... not Clusterf*cks.

> > Why aren't we breathing 100%
> > Argon, Nate?
>=20
> concentration. look it up sometime.=20

Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
=20
> > Who the f*ck do you think is raking
> > you over the coals right now?
>=20
> lol......certainly not you. =20

I won the straw poll! Just because you
can't smell the scorched meat doesn't mean
your ass isn't barbecued... go ahead, ask some
of your compatriots here.
=20
> > you seriously think he'd
> > have given them to Iran?
>=20
> i never said a word about iran. im sure bin laden and his network =
would=20
> have certainly been accomodating. sad part is that i fear one day =
those=20
> weapons will surface HERE.

What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
=20
> > I feel pretty good about that decade you're describing...
>=20
> im sure all anti-american socialists do.

Tim McVey... your buddy.

> > Messenger/message Nate... either deal with the information,
> > or put your cranium back in your culo.
>=20
> you have provided no information. you have provided agenda driven=20
> speculation full of "could be's" in hopes that the rest of us will be =
stupid=20
> enough to fall for it.

The rest of the planet has... you're not
installing CFC's anymore. No amount
of evidence I could (and have) post(ed)
will make you admit your ignorance...
it's a self-perpetuating condition you have.
=20
> > I don't see many links from you, btw...
>=20
> you asked me for ONE SINGLE link and i gave you two. i can pull up a =
dozen=20
> or more links from "engineers" that will explain to search for =
refrigerant=20
> leaks below the suspected leakage point because refrigerant falls. =
youve=20
> YET to directly respond to those links i provided.

They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
responded to... this stuff is done by scientists.
It's the difference between just enough knowlege to fix=20
a leak, and understanding the operation of the atmosphere.
You see, Nate... you're ignorant. Not only ignorant,
but actively, on-purpose ignorant. This is the most
evil thing you can do to yourself... turn off your brain
so that, no matter what, no information can come in
and change your belief system. Your defense mechanism
is self-perpetuating. =20
__
Steve
..

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> >> because your own links are nothing more than "could be's".
>=20
> > No they're not...
>=20
> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>

They're not!
=20
> >> TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you =
provided".
>=20
> >Selective reading is a trait we don't share...
>=20
> lol what a stool! i gave you links from the hvac industry which =
CLEARLY=20
> support my statements (ill quote them again for the benefit of anyone =
in=20
> doubt about how ignorant you really are) and you just will not respond =

> directly. :-)

Go ahead...=20
=20
> > > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the =
bottom=20
> > > under
> > > electronic leak detectors:
> > > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore=20
> > > refrigerants
> > > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak=20
> > > detecting
> > > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more =
effective=20
> > > in
> > > detecting a leak and will save you time."

"will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!


> > > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the=20
> > > electronic
> > > leak detector that i personally use)
> > > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and =
will=20
> > > tend
> > > to
> > > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching =
below
> > > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and =
reliable=20
> > > way
> > > of finding such."

"tend to fall"? That's not conclusive!

>=20
> >> those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the =
very
> >> manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their =
weight.
>=20
> > Spoken like a true HVAC altar boy
>=20
> TRANSLATION --> "youre right nate!" :-) your pitiful attempts at =
dodging=20
> my links are funny at this point. that you would defend your =
statements=20
> further show your ignorance. youre downright pitiful and i find you =
quite=20
> hilarious. i think ill continue to quote these responses. :-)

Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...
however, I did go back and show that even your little
techie links have inconclusive parts to them. Chew on it.

What's the concentration of Freon, Nate?
=20
> > answer me
> > this... outside, on a windy day, where do you hold
> > the leak check probe? BE SPECIFIC.
>=20
> lol you stool the wind doesnt blow from ground level to the =
stratosphere.

You can't answer a simple HVAC tech question! I've
even posted links to information about the Polar Vortex...
useless, you refuse to acknowlege them. This is not
an argument, this is a shouting contest. We can both
shout all day long, and make this the longest sorry
OT thread in history... but I'll be the Scientist, and
you'll be the Dumbass, and that's the way that the
archives will have it for eternity.


> > It ain't science, I can certify that.
>=20
> thats what ive been trying to tell you. your statements arent =
science.=20
> theyre agenda driven speculation and nothing more.

NOAA, Nate... vs techie training manuals.


> > Engineers, Nate...
>=20
> yup. those same engineers wrote the very manuals that i quoted for =
you.=20
> funny, huh? :-)

Not as funny as that smiley up your ass!
=20
> >> the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. =
:-)
>=20
> > As I said... the Higher Knowlege is not for you.
>=20
> lol those same engineers wrote the manuals that i quoted for you (yes, =
ill=20
> continue to say that to show what a fool you are and how pitiful your=20
> argument has become) :-)

Keep doing it, Nate... I won't give up. You
are a fool. We all know this.
=20
> > Higher Knowlege, Nate.... not for you.
>=20
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response"

No, it's my actual response. You are not fit
for engineering, Nate... you don't have the
correct mindset. Remain a tech, and be happy...
rest assured that the engineers will make rules
to keep you from doing harm. Break the rules,
lose your piece of paper, and your mealticket.
You'll damn well do what the scientist tells you
to do... at least, while someone is watching.
__
Steve
..

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...

>> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show
>> refrigerant
>> falls due to its weight.

> Higher Knowlege... not for you.

TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to prove me
wrong".


> Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?

depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than
..000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000001% of the total air
around us. :-)


> ask some of your compatriots here.

lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to
ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my links
which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. :-)

here they are again:
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."

:-)

> What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?

the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed and
still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.


> They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.

BULL****! the second link is the operators manual for the leak detector
that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was designed and
written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

> I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> responded to

now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your liberal
seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people will
eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times to
your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates anything
from being conclusive.

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

"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
...
>> lol......now THERES something conclusive. <rolling eyes>

> They're not!

EXACTLY! your links are not conclusive. :-)


> > > 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."

> "will be more effective "... that's not conclusive!

but the "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore
refrigerants will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures." certainly is!
:-)


> Your HVAC training links are not worthy of consideration...

TRANSLATION --> "i have no response because they clearly prove what youve
been saying"


> NOAA, Nate

......which says nothing beyond "could be's". :-)

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

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message =
...
> "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20
> ...
>=20
> >> like the links i showed you from "engineers" which clearly show=20
> >> refrigerant
> >> falls due to its weight.
>=20
> > Higher Knowlege... not for you.
>=20
> TRANSLATION --> "i have no response nate, i never expected you to =
prove me=20
> wrong".

Cute... for a dumbass.

>=20
>=20
> > Fool... what's the concentration of Freon?
>=20
> depends on how much is vented, but id bet its less than=20
> .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000001% of the =
total air=20
> around us. :-)

Let's see... that's ten to the negative 57th. Were you aware
that there are only ten to the 78th atoms in the observable
universe? I didn't think so... you being a dumbass and all...
You lose the bet... the computed number of atoms in
the planet earth is around ten to the 50th... your figure is
smaller than an atom on earth. What a dumbass.

Here's the link, if you're capable of understanding
algebra and chemistry:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qaearth.html

Now, dumbass, let's talk about the *real* 'concentration'
of CFC's in the atmosphere. Here's some info and
a link:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-007/001-007.html

<>
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)=20
This class of compounds is purely man-made in origin. It includes =
CFC-11 (CFCl3), CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-113 (C2Cl3F3), and CCl4. These =
compounds have been used for many years as solvents, refrigeration =
fluids, spray-can propellants, and, more recently, as blowers in =
foam-making. Their concentrations have been measured in the atmosphere =
since 1978 (WMO, 1985). The annual growth rates for atmospheric =
concentrations have been 5% for CFC-11 (Fig.3) and CFC-12, and 1% for =
CCl4. The 1983 concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 were 200 pptv (parts =
per trillion by volume) and 320 pptv, respectively. The measured =
concentration of CFC-113 was 32 pptv in January 1985 and that of CCl4 =
was 140 pptv in 1979. The 1990 concentrations are about 280, 484, 60, =
and 146 pptv for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and CCl4, respectively (IPCC, =
1990). Much attention has been focused on these compounds, because they =
are the primary agents causing the destruction of stratospheric ozone. =
They have long atmospheric lifetimes (75, 111, and about 50 years for =
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CCl4, respectively) (Wuebbles & Edmonds, 1988).=20
</>

Adding all those up, comes out to 970pptv...=20
definitely *not* zero. You were only off by
a factor of ten to the 48th... a number not
far from the number of atoms on earth.=20
What an incredible lack of scientific acumen...
I mean, dumbass.

>=20
>=20
> > ask some of your compatriots here.
>=20
> lol theyre laughing at you, only youre to stupid to realize it, and to =

> ignorant to know when to quit. its cool, ill continue to post my =
links=20
> which are written by your engineers that prove you are dead wrong. =
:-)

How would you know? They're not lining up to
support you... and my personal email from this
little flamefest is going %100 my way. Not that
it matters, much.... you, and anyone that thinks
like you do, has their head in the sand.

>=20
> > What weapons? The ones that were destroyed?
>=20
> the ones everyone (without their head stuck in the sand) knows existed =
and=20
> still exist today. just look at the things we _did_ find.

You mean the explosives that were looted? The
high-tech stuff that can be used to make atom
bombs? The stuff that Rumsfeld let slip away?
It's being used to kill US soldiers in roadside
bombs every day... it will probably end up here,
since we did Iraq on the cheap. I don't know
of any WMD found, do you?


=20
> > They were from HVAC training courses, fer chrissakes.
>=20
> BULL****! the second link is the operators manual for the leak =
detector=20
> that i personnally use. the leak detector AND manual which was =
designed and=20
> written by those same engineers you swear by. :-)

Call one... ask him. I double dare you... btw, have
you read the 'TOUBLESHOOTING' (sic) section
of your leak-checker manual?

Seriously, using a leak-checker manual to debate
the NOAA... pure dumbass material, Nate. Go
back to school.

>=20
> > I posted NOAA quotes and links that you haven't
> > responded to
>=20
> now on top of being an ignorant fool, youre a LIAR. i know in your =
liberal=20
> seminars they teach you that if you tell a like often enough people =
will=20
> eventually believe it but that wont fly here. i responded MANY times =
to=20
> your links CLEARLY showing you the "could be's" that invalidates =
anything=20
> from being conclusive.

I have posted links you haven't responded to...=20
you never responded to this:

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.
</>

When will you respond to this link I've posted twice now? And why
do I have to have been to a 'liberal seminar'? I hereby deny it...
I'm kicking your ass with my own two frontal lobes, no help necessary,
beyond standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't worry if you
don't get the reference... completely out of your league.
__
Steve
..