134a Refrigerant
07-15-2005 | 02:37 PM
#3191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here is what you wrote:
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
07-15-2005 | 02:37 PM
#3192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here is what you wrote:
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
07-15-2005 | 02:37 PM
#3193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here is what you wrote:
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> new density.
Let's parse your statement:
[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
which leaves the meat or your statement:
volume change is their new density.
If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
this leaves "volume is density"
Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
manner?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> NO WHERE HAVE I STATED "Volume Change = Density" They obviously
> different by definition. I said creates, like an explosion by ignition.
> Dense!!!!!!!!!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> jeff wrote:
>
>>Here you state [Volume Change = Density].
>>Are you saying I am wrong in calling you on such an obviously incorrect
>>statement, or are you saying that you think you have made a correct
>>statement?
>>
>>Again, you are still attempting, albeit rather poorly, to describe what
>>happened, and not how and why. Here is a free hint: "Hydrogen Bonding".
07-15-2005 | 02:45 PM
#3194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Your deductive powers are seriously flawed! You really need help,
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
07-15-2005 | 02:45 PM
#3195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Your deductive powers are seriously flawed! You really need help,
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
07-15-2005 | 02:45 PM
#3196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Your deductive powers are seriously flawed! You really need help,
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
07-15-2005 | 02:45 PM
#3197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Your deductive powers are seriously flawed! You really need help,
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
grabbing for straws like this.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> Here is what you wrote:
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
> > new density.
>
> Let's parse your statement:
> [Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>
> [created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
> which leaves the meat or your statement:
>
> volume change is their new density.
>
> If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>
> this leaves "volume is density"
>
> Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
> manner?
07-15-2005 | 03:23 PM
#3198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?
07-15-2005 | 03:23 PM
#3199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?
07-15-2005 | 03:23 PM
#3200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?
> Your deductive powers are seriously flawed!
The parsing of your statement was straight forward. No deductive powers
involved at all, simply a carving up of a statement to the core
assertion. Show the flaws.
> You really need help, grabbing for straws like this.
straws???
>>Here is what you wrote:
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>> >Just so you now know, the volume change created by mixing is their
>> > new density.
>>
>>Let's parse your statement:
>>[Just so you now know,] Non-sequitur. Ignore
>>
>>[created by mixing] Qualifier, we can take that out.
>>which leaves the meat or your statement:
>>
>>volume change is their new density.
>>
>>If you want to divide it up a little finer, the [change] and [their new]
>> are simply descriptors referring th the new state and can be dropped.
>>
>>this leaves "volume is density"
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to rephrase it in a more coherent and cohesive
>>manner?