If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
That's why America is taking the initiate.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O http://www.billhughes.com/ Stephen Cowell wrote: > > I hope you all see what I mean, about > scary... > > What if a big bomb were to go off in > the middle of Oklahoma City, Bill... > still want to nuke somebody else? > __ > Steve > . |
Ads |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
"L.W. (=DFill) Hughes III" > wrote in message = ... > Stephen Cowell wrote: > >=20 > > I hope you all see what I mean, about > > scary... > >=20 > > What if a big bomb were to go off in > > the middle of Oklahoma City, Bill... > > still want to nuke somebody else? > That's why America is taking the initiate.=20 ?? Like that would stop another McVey... __ Steve .. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
... > If you really cared about rape, instead of just > trying to save your face TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of iraq. i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my agenda does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any manner". stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at least respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce of integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort this one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push your own agenda. > 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' the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one single bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man im talking to. im sadly disappointed. > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police? 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-) 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals. -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com http://UtilityOffRoad.com |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
... > It is a science of probabilities horse****. your beliefs are unproven. > EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA > cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner... nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more. > are you the Site Manager? im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack systems that i am solely responsible for. > You never gave a link > supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling, > don't you think? <SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to the stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. when attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak detector you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because the refrigerant FALLS! 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 stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with you? tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air. of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it. -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com http://UtilityOffRoad.com |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Not having another Waco.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O http://www.billhughes.com/ Stephen Cowell wrote: > > ?? Like that would stop another McVey... > __ > Steve > . |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message = ... > "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message > ... > > If you really cared about rape, instead of just > > trying to save your face >=20 > TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of = iraq.=20 > i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my = agenda=20 > does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any=20 > manner". 'Bush liberating the women of Iraq'... pure excrement. Read below... you'd have nuked the whole damn place anyway. =20 =20 > stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at = least=20 > respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce = of=20 > integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort = this=20 > one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push = your own=20 > agenda. Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity... am *I* the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate their women'? The whole frickin' population needed liberation, and you want to go on about women? Would you rather be raped, or gassed and buried by a bulldozer? Children, with bullets to the head? Raped women is not good... but you lack perspective, Nate. And as I said... Sudan is much more ripe for saving people, if that's what you want to do. We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid was too high, and will be too high.... don't forget that the price included lying to the American people. Treason... Bush committed High Crimes. Makes all that flap about Clinton's pecker look downright amusing... =20 > > 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' >=20 > the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one = single=20 > bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man = im=20 > talking to. im sadly disappointed. No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face. The discussion is about the ozone layer... I posted NOAA information. You went off about 'young girls raped'... evidently in your Conservative Clusterf*cks they teach this debate tactic. That crap don't wash here. Nobody believes that you give a damn about any Iraqi civilians... you're a Libertarian! It's their problem! Let them deal with it! =20 > > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police? >=20 > 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up = to me=20 > we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-) I think we all get that from you... not a pretty picture. And you can stick that smiley up your ass. > 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals. Then you're one f*cked up confused mess... __ Steve .. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
m... > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own. >... am *I* > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate > their women'? thats NOT what i said. get it right. > The whole frickin' population needed > liberation indeed. > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid > was too high and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price? > don't forget > that the price included lying to the American people. > Treason what typical seminar liberal bull****! bush never "lied" to the american people. 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged them just before he bombed iraq in '98. 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar. > Bush committed High Crimes. and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC. > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face. lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ****. :-) > And you can stick that smiley up your ass. i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you in advance to get off the topic of my ass. :-) -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com http://UtilityOffRoad.com |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message = ... > "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message > ... > > It is a science of probabilities >=20 > horse****. your beliefs are unproven. How the hell would you know? >=20 >=20 > > EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA > > cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner... >=20 > nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more. I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's looking, anyway. >=20 > > are you the Site Manager? >=20 > im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack=20 > systems that i am solely responsible for. Oh, are you the only person on site? Not that it matters... one viewing of that film has convinced me that I wouldn't be able to stand your job for lots more than you're making... asphalt plants were a lot more fun than that. I have a creative job now... I make about half what you make, and I love it. Wouldn't trade places for the world. > > You never gave a link > > supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling, > > don't you think? >=20 > <SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to = the=20 > stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. = when=20 > attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak = detector=20 > you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because = the=20 > refrigerant FALLS! You don't get it, and I'm not going to waste much more breath trying to make you=20 get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy. >=20 > from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom = under=20 > electronic leak detectors: > "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore = refrigerants=20 > will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak = detecting=20 > on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective = in=20 > detecting a leak and will save you time." >=20 > from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the = electronic=20 > leak detector that i personally use) > "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will = tend to=20 > fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching = below=20 > areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable = way=20 > of finding such." >=20 > now stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with = you?=20 > tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air. >=20 > of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it. For you, your technical training manuals are the Bible, and carry incontrovertible information that cannot be wrong. You imagine that your special status as an HVAC tech gives you an insight that countless scientists and engineers don't have. Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the ones that design and build the systems you are only qualified to leak-check. They use science... you are like the altar-boy, whereas the *engineer* is the Priest. Whatever the Priest tells you, you must do... because you don't posess the Higher Knowlege. 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. Don't you see what an idiot you look like, saying that Freon can't be in the upper atmosphere at all, since it's heavier than air? Hell, Nate, when it's released, it becomes *part* of air... air is a mixture of gasses, some of which are heavy, and some of which are light. You say the reason is 'concentration'... if all the argon fell out of the air right now, we'd die! We'd be in a layer of argon=20 %1 as high as the (normalized) atmosphere! When you climb a mountain, why don't you reach the oxygen layer, then the nitrogen layer, then the helium layer? 'Concentration'!! you say. This implies mixing, does it not? All these gasses... differing weights, *mixed* up? Well, I can assure you that Freon *mixes* just like all the others. =20 __ Steve gloves off .. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message = ... > "Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message=20 > m... > > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity >=20 > i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own. Oh, 'integrity' =3D=3D 'sheeple'. > >... am *I* > > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate > > their women'? >=20 > thats NOT what i said. get it right. "TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for=20 liberating the women of iraq. " =20 > > The whole frickin' population needed > > liberation >=20 > indeed. > 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed=20 > a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke=20 > the entire arab world. Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom? Can you see why I think your brain is a mess? > > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid > > was too high >=20 > and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price? We'll never know... the Space Cowboy rode in from Dodge City and shot the place up. Iraq was not even a priority... unless you're a Bush, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz... the point is, it could have been done much easier and cheaper... there was no hurry, unless you look at an upcoming re-election as a reason. We could have had real multilateral clout, instead of the 'Coalition of the Arm-Twisted'. > > don't forget > > that the price included lying to the American people. > > Treason >=20 > what typical seminar liberal bull****! bush never=20 > "lied" to the american=20 > people. > 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the = whole=20 > iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton = acknowledged=20 > them just before he bombed iraq in '98. Proof for existence? Everyone knows that they *did* exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded. Remember when he finally said "OK, inspectors come in"? We invaded anyway... and found nothing. If Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back, it would have been brilliant, and I'd be singing his praises now. But no....=20 > 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being = wrong=20 > about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best = intelligence=20 > he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar. Indeed, there is a big difference... but Bush was not wrong, he *lied*. Downing Street Memo, Nate... hell, there's probably a www.bushlies.com somewhere... oh hell yeah, you bet! Read some: <> There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true = impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it = shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that = point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming = that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last = option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. = The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable = fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as = many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from = Washington with quite a different impression: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible = shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush = wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the = conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were = being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN = route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's = record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after = military action." </> That last quoted part, BTW, is a direct quote from the DSM. Here's some more good stuff: http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/ <> When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of = military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 - three months after the = Downing Street memorandum - he didn't say that military action was = "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world = that he still hoped war could be avoided. "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not = become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be = done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." = He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every = option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it = would be "as a last resort." </> Big, big lies. =20 > > Bush committed High Crimes. >=20 > and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC. >) http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexa...hable_offense= s_526 <> In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), = John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly = sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. = Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. = This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in = particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted = to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having = launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the = President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint = Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that = military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national = security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by = Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer = to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's = constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than = Watergate at 148.=20 If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the = President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the = United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: = the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. =A7 371, which makes it a = felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud = the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any = purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 = U.S.C. =A7 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and = willfully false statements to the United States Congress.=20 </> I think "federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. =A7 371" and "False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. =A7 1001" get's pretty specific, don't you think? Chew on that, Bushie... > > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face. >=20 > lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ****. :-) Is that the same smiley I told you to cram? =20 > > And you can stick that smiley up your ass. >=20 > i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank = you=20 > in advance to get off the topic of my ass. :-) *You're* the one talking out of it... __ Steve .. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Cowell" > wrote in message
... > How the hell would you know? because your own links are nothing more than "could be's". > I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's > looking, anyway. personal attacks give you no credibility. > 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. TRANSLATION --> "i have no real response for the links you provided". > > 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." > Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the > ones that design and build the systems hey einstein, who do you think WROTE THE MANUALS that im quoting? :-) those same engineers that you present as being omnipotent wrote the very manuals that CLEARLY show that refrigerants FALL due to their weight. > you are only qualified > to leak-check. lol....personal insults (particularly ones based in ignorance) give you NO credibility. :-) fact is, you have no idea what im qualified to do, or what level of OEM training i have. > you are like the altar-boy, > whereas the *engineer* is the Priest the same engineer that wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-) > rest assured > that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities > of distribution, much better than you do. .....and yet they wrote the manuals supporting my statements. :-) > Well, I can assure you that Freon > *mixes* just like all the others. and a mixed gas becomes even heavier than it was before. ......like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. :-) -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com http://UtilityOffRoad.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Conditioning (A/C) Trouble | [email protected] | Chrysler | 5 | June 2nd 05 04:24 AM |
Maxi-Frig for R12/R134A ? | Henry Kolesnik | Technology | 39 | May 26th 05 06:31 AM |
Disposal of Refrigerant 12 dichlorodifluoromethane? | Wayne Pein | Technology | 4 | April 13th 05 11:26 PM |
Climatronic Diagnostic Controls | Luís Lourenço | Audi | 1 | November 12th 04 09:22 AM |