"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:72lEe.2086$Ok6.1003@newssvr29.news.prodigy.ne t...

>> TRANSLATION --> "im a little girly bitch" :-)

> Be as femme as you want

i have no doubt thats the code that you live by. :-)


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

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:lm9Ee.80$sc3.68@trnddc07...
>
>>Nathan W. Collier, the poolboi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> im glad to see that you claim any four wheel drive is a "jeep".
>>> it just goes to show how full of ---- the rest of
>>>your argument is.
>>
>>HL&S <G>, but don't you think it's more than just a little bit dishonest
>>to snip what I wrote and then claim I said something completely different?
>
>
> YOU stated that in many parts of the world any 4x4 is referenced as a jeep.
> you went on to DEFEND IT by claiming its usage was reasonable
> (paraphrasing).
>
> "reality is that in many parts of the world, a jeep is any four wheel drive
> utility vehicle." YOUR words.
>
> jeff i dont care whats done anywhere in the world it doesnt change the
> bottom line. no matter how many ignorant people say it, a land rover is NOT
> a jeep. by the same token, no matter how many ignorant people use "freon"
> to describe refrigerant it just does not make it so. you can continue to
> argue your ignorance all you want, you cannot change the bottom line and the
> harder you argue your ignorance the more you take away from your valid
> points.
>

The flip side of this is that no matter how much you dislike something
you cannot make it go away by wishing it to, or denying it's existence.
*I* do not use "Jeep" for any other vehicles other than what I have
previously stated, in spite of your trimming to eliminate those
statements. However I know what you were fishing for and I gave it to
you: in other parts of the world "jeep" is used generically. Like it or
not, that's reality. Time to grow up Nate and realize that we do not get
to impose our own versions of reality on the world.

--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:lm9Ee.80$sc3.68@trnddc07...
>
>>Nathan W. Collier, the poolboi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> im glad to see that you claim any four wheel drive is a "jeep".
>>> it just goes to show how full of ---- the rest of
>>>your argument is.
>>
>>HL&S <G>, but don't you think it's more than just a little bit dishonest
>>to snip what I wrote and then claim I said something completely different?
>
>
> YOU stated that in many parts of the world any 4x4 is referenced as a jeep.
> you went on to DEFEND IT by claiming its usage was reasonable
> (paraphrasing).
>
> "reality is that in many parts of the world, a jeep is any four wheel drive
> utility vehicle." YOUR words.
>
> jeff i dont care whats done anywhere in the world it doesnt change the
> bottom line. no matter how many ignorant people say it, a land rover is NOT
> a jeep. by the same token, no matter how many ignorant people use "freon"
> to describe refrigerant it just does not make it so. you can continue to
> argue your ignorance all you want, you cannot change the bottom line and the
> harder you argue your ignorance the more you take away from your valid
> points.
>

The flip side of this is that no matter how much you dislike something
you cannot make it go away by wishing it to, or denying it's existence.
*I* do not use "Jeep" for any other vehicles other than what I have
previously stated, in spite of your trimming to eliminate those
statements. However I know what you were fishing for and I gave it to
you: in other parts of the world "jeep" is used generically. Like it or
not, that's reality. Time to grow up Nate and realize that we do not get
to impose our own versions of reality on the world.

--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:lm9Ee.80$sc3.68@trnddc07...
>
>>Nathan W. Collier, the poolboi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> im glad to see that you claim any four wheel drive is a "jeep".
>>> it just goes to show how full of ---- the rest of
>>>your argument is.
>>
>>HL&S <G>, but don't you think it's more than just a little bit dishonest
>>to snip what I wrote and then claim I said something completely different?
>
>
> YOU stated that in many parts of the world any 4x4 is referenced as a jeep.
> you went on to DEFEND IT by claiming its usage was reasonable
> (paraphrasing).
>
> "reality is that in many parts of the world, a jeep is any four wheel drive
> utility vehicle." YOUR words.
>
> jeff i dont care whats done anywhere in the world it doesnt change the
> bottom line. no matter how many ignorant people say it, a land rover is NOT
> a jeep. by the same token, no matter how many ignorant people use "freon"
> to describe refrigerant it just does not make it so. you can continue to
> argue your ignorance all you want, you cannot change the bottom line and the
> harder you argue your ignorance the more you take away from your valid
> points.
>

The flip side of this is that no matter how much you dislike something
you cannot make it go away by wishing it to, or denying it's existence.
*I* do not use "Jeep" for any other vehicles other than what I have
previously stated, in spite of your trimming to eliminate those
statements. However I know what you were fishing for and I gave it to
you: in other parts of the world "jeep" is used generically. Like it or
not, that's reality. Time to grow up Nate and realize that we do not get
to impose our own versions of reality on the world.

--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:lm9Ee.80$sc3.68@trnddc07...
>
>>Nathan W. Collier, the poolboi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> im glad to see that you claim any four wheel drive is a "jeep".
>>> it just goes to show how full of ---- the rest of
>>>your argument is.
>>
>>HL&S <G>, but don't you think it's more than just a little bit dishonest
>>to snip what I wrote and then claim I said something completely different?
>
>
> YOU stated that in many parts of the world any 4x4 is referenced as a jeep.
> you went on to DEFEND IT by claiming its usage was reasonable
> (paraphrasing).
>
> "reality is that in many parts of the world, a jeep is any four wheel drive
> utility vehicle." YOUR words.
>
> jeff i dont care whats done anywhere in the world it doesnt change the
> bottom line. no matter how many ignorant people say it, a land rover is NOT
> a jeep. by the same token, no matter how many ignorant people use "freon"
> to describe refrigerant it just does not make it so. you can continue to
> argue your ignorance all you want, you cannot change the bottom line and the
> harder you argue your ignorance the more you take away from your valid
> points.
>

The flip side of this is that no matter how much you dislike something
you cannot make it go away by wishing it to, or denying it's existence.
*I* do not use "Jeep" for any other vehicles other than what I have
previously stated, in spite of your trimming to eliminate those
statements. However I know what you were fishing for and I gave it to
you: in other parts of the world "jeep" is used generically. Like it or
not, that's reality. Time to grow up Nate and realize that we do not get
to impose our own versions of reality on the world.

--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:YD9Ee.84$sc3.1@trnddc07...
>
>>don't you remember writing:
>
> fine and well, i stand corrected (<-- the mark of integrity which you
> liberals know nothing of).
You know nothing of my politics, and they are not germain to this
discussion.
in my haste i failed to express myself properly.
> so you are suggesting that sunlight does not destroy chlorine?

The law of conservation of mass: "Matter can neither be created nor
destroyed, only changed in form."
Nothing short of nuclear bombardment can destroy chlorine.
>
> "Numerous field tests and evaluations have demonstrated that the addition of
> a minimum of 30 parts per million of cyanuric acid to swimming pool water
> prevents wasteful destruction of the free chlorine residual by sunlight. "
> from
> http://webpages.charter.net/poolserv...0Chemistry.htm
> and i can find you 1000 links showing that sunlight destroys chlorine.
>

Key phrase "free chlorine residual". If you go back and actually read,
about 14 lines into your page is this statement: " when chlorine
compounds are dissolved in water, hypochlorous acid is formed. (Remember
that name-it does the actual sanitizing.)"

If you look back to what I have previously posted you will find where I
posted the chemical sequence for you including the definition of
"hypochlorus acid". What you think of as "sunlight dissolving chlorine"
or "sunlight destroying chlorine" is what I previously stated as
sunlight causing the chlorine atom in hypochlorus acid to dissociate. It
is breaking the chlorine atom free and allowing it to excape.

Chlorine in: Cl2+H2O -> HCL + HOCl
Chlorine out: Light + 4(HOCl) -> 2(H2O) + 2(Cl2) + O2
It should be noted that some of the Chlorine evolved can disolve back
into solution. Chlorine is not destroyed, hypochlorous acid is.



--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:YD9Ee.84$sc3.1@trnddc07...
>
>>don't you remember writing:
>
> fine and well, i stand corrected (<-- the mark of integrity which you
> liberals know nothing of).
You know nothing of my politics, and they are not germain to this
discussion.
in my haste i failed to express myself properly.
> so you are suggesting that sunlight does not destroy chlorine?

The law of conservation of mass: "Matter can neither be created nor
destroyed, only changed in form."
Nothing short of nuclear bombardment can destroy chlorine.
>
> "Numerous field tests and evaluations have demonstrated that the addition of
> a minimum of 30 parts per million of cyanuric acid to swimming pool water
> prevents wasteful destruction of the free chlorine residual by sunlight. "
> from
> http://webpages.charter.net/poolserv...0Chemistry.htm
> and i can find you 1000 links showing that sunlight destroys chlorine.
>

Key phrase "free chlorine residual". If you go back and actually read,
about 14 lines into your page is this statement: " when chlorine
compounds are dissolved in water, hypochlorous acid is formed. (Remember
that name-it does the actual sanitizing.)"

If you look back to what I have previously posted you will find where I
posted the chemical sequence for you including the definition of
"hypochlorus acid". What you think of as "sunlight dissolving chlorine"
or "sunlight destroying chlorine" is what I previously stated as
sunlight causing the chlorine atom in hypochlorus acid to dissociate. It
is breaking the chlorine atom free and allowing it to excape.

Chlorine in: Cl2+H2O -> HCL + HOCl
Chlorine out: Light + 4(HOCl) -> 2(H2O) + 2(Cl2) + O2
It should be noted that some of the Chlorine evolved can disolve back
into solution. Chlorine is not destroyed, hypochlorous acid is.



--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:YD9Ee.84$sc3.1@trnddc07...
>
>>don't you remember writing:
>
> fine and well, i stand corrected (<-- the mark of integrity which you
> liberals know nothing of).
You know nothing of my politics, and they are not germain to this
discussion.
in my haste i failed to express myself properly.
> so you are suggesting that sunlight does not destroy chlorine?

The law of conservation of mass: "Matter can neither be created nor
destroyed, only changed in form."
Nothing short of nuclear bombardment can destroy chlorine.
>
> "Numerous field tests and evaluations have demonstrated that the addition of
> a minimum of 30 parts per million of cyanuric acid to swimming pool water
> prevents wasteful destruction of the free chlorine residual by sunlight. "
> from
> http://webpages.charter.net/poolserv...0Chemistry.htm
> and i can find you 1000 links showing that sunlight destroys chlorine.
>

Key phrase "free chlorine residual". If you go back and actually read,
about 14 lines into your page is this statement: " when chlorine
compounds are dissolved in water, hypochlorous acid is formed. (Remember
that name-it does the actual sanitizing.)"

If you look back to what I have previously posted you will find where I
posted the chemical sequence for you including the definition of
"hypochlorus acid". What you think of as "sunlight dissolving chlorine"
or "sunlight destroying chlorine" is what I previously stated as
sunlight causing the chlorine atom in hypochlorus acid to dissociate. It
is breaking the chlorine atom free and allowing it to excape.

Chlorine in: Cl2+H2O -> HCL + HOCl
Chlorine out: Light + 4(HOCl) -> 2(H2O) + 2(Cl2) + O2
It should be noted that some of the Chlorine evolved can disolve back
into solution. Chlorine is not destroyed, hypochlorous acid is.



--
jeff

 

Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> "jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:YD9Ee.84$sc3.1@trnddc07...
>
>>don't you remember writing:
>
> fine and well, i stand corrected (<-- the mark of integrity which you
> liberals know nothing of).
You know nothing of my politics, and they are not germain to this
discussion.
in my haste i failed to express myself properly.
> so you are suggesting that sunlight does not destroy chlorine?

The law of conservation of mass: "Matter can neither be created nor
destroyed, only changed in form."
Nothing short of nuclear bombardment can destroy chlorine.
>
> "Numerous field tests and evaluations have demonstrated that the addition of
> a minimum of 30 parts per million of cyanuric acid to swimming pool water
> prevents wasteful destruction of the free chlorine residual by sunlight. "
> from
> http://webpages.charter.net/poolserv...0Chemistry.htm
> and i can find you 1000 links showing that sunlight destroys chlorine.
>

Key phrase "free chlorine residual". If you go back and actually read,
about 14 lines into your page is this statement: " when chlorine
compounds are dissolved in water, hypochlorous acid is formed. (Remember
that name-it does the actual sanitizing.)"

If you look back to what I have previously posted you will find where I
posted the chemical sequence for you including the definition of
"hypochlorus acid". What you think of as "sunlight dissolving chlorine"
or "sunlight destroying chlorine" is what I previously stated as
sunlight causing the chlorine atom in hypochlorus acid to dissociate. It
is breaking the chlorine atom free and allowing it to excape.

Chlorine in: Cl2+H2O -> HCL + HOCl
Chlorine out: Light + 4(HOCl) -> 2(H2O) + 2(Cl2) + O2
It should be noted that some of the Chlorine evolved can disolve back
into solution. Chlorine is not destroyed, hypochlorous acid is.



--
jeff

 

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:Zb5Fe.4105$vY2.302@trnddc09...
> The flip side of this is that no matter how much you dislike something you
> cannot make it go away by wishing it to, or denying it's existence.

im not trying to make it "go away". im stating that its _wrong_.


> in other parts of the world "jeep" is used generically. Like it or not,
> that's reality.

and its still WRONG. :-)


> Time to grow up Nate and realize that we do not get to impose our own
> versions of reality on the world.

time to own up jeff, and admit that you were WRONG.

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