What did Eugene have to say? And tell me, do you know who Jim Roberts and Eugene Miya are?
If we have you using Roberts as a supporting witness, and Eugene (yes Eugene and I have met) as mine... you do realize that you're off the deep end again? (Roberts is somewhat of a net loon. Eugene Miya is a net legend.)
You've proven that you aren't the first twit that I've poked enough to cause erruption of tantrums. You can't say I didn't warn you not to try a flame war...
sqrt(-1) is just as imaginary as 1 is.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
No it isnt. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition...
next...
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
Nothing was deleted!
The style may be proper by your standards - certainly not mine - but the [content] is dead wrong. Nowhere did I refer to Don. We were talking about The Phantom.
John
--- No, and I don't care. What I found was that someone, about a year ago, pegged you for the same phony you are today. The phony, BTW, you have proved yourself to be by making all sorts of ridiculous claims which you later had to issue hasty disclaimers about when you were caught.
---
--- Interesting. I need no "supporting witness" but, again, you seem to have this need to latch on to someone's coat tails in order to be considered credible. From your performance here I can certainly understand why.
---
--- You either flatter yourself or you're used to playing with babies.
---
--- Yeah, like a Chihuahua yapping at a Rottweiler, LOL!
-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
No he didn't.
Ken
Sorry, your time's up.......
Ken
Is this the five-minute argument, or the full half hour?
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it." (Stephen Leacock)
Problem is, you're losing miserably... ;-P
So? Did anyone claim there was?
Bud's useage meets widely accepted and well known English. What *you* think about it is immaterial.
Provide some context that demonstrates it then, because it doesn't appear to be what you are now claiming.
The only person that matters here is Don, and that he knows I didn't insult him.
Get a life.
John
--- Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.
-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
I apparently did not make myself clear. My comment was not about Don Lancaster, nor did my post in any way allude to Don Lancaster, nor did the post I WAS commenting on refer to Don Lancaster.
Bud's post did not make a damned thing clear by screwing up and adding adding "[Don Lancaster]."
Did I make it abundantly clear?
On the other hand, it's nice to hear he did it using proper style.
Don
The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that, a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs. I am simply going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think other substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP though.
Tom
"Tom MacIntyre" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
Strictly speaking, the change of state occurs as the latent heat is transferred, not after.
If you peruse the phase space of water at
John's challenge is a bit of a trick and appears to show he knows how to read that graph and accompanying table.
Good one, John!
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required