"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4goge44govec@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5hqIe.951$3M4.462@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> >> lol you find a real one (you know, not something youre LYING about,
liar)
> >> and then you might have something. :-)
> >
> > Do you regard yourself as qualified in cryo? I mean,
> > are you stupid, or a liar?
>
> i never claimed to be qualified in cryo. cryo does not fall under my
> refrigeration certification.

Is it not in the field of refrigeration? Did you not
say:

>the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
>source/geo thermal.

?? As I said before, are you lying, or just stupid?

>
> oh, but id bet im more qualified to work on cryo than you are to talk
about
> it.

I've already talked about it... you haven't. Points
for me. Go ahead... spout some of your infinite
knowlege... just don't cheat like Bill does.
Actually, I don't trust you... you've already proven
yourself unworthy of trust.

> > But I *did* give you an alternative to
> > replacing a head pressure control
>
> and it was TOTAL --------! :-) beating your car with a hammer is an
> "alternative" to changing the tire but that doesnt mean its correct.

More spin... you've already agreed with me that
if the ambient is not going to go low that the
head pressure control can be bypassed.
I win... again.

> > Chief site tech, Nate... four years, my own
> > $6M site, 82 foot dish to maintain.
>
> and it doesnt mean you know ---- about refrigeration. :-)

Once again... stonewalling. Talk about cryo for us...
but don't cheat!

> > Two
> > complete, separate cryo systems, with
> > 5 or 6 refrigerators on each. 15 Kelvins...
> > that's some cold stuff, Nate... colder than
> > you'll *ever* work on. I call that *refrigeration*.
>
> show me your certification or youre simply LYING. hell even NASA has
> janitors who can claim they work at NASA, doesnt mean that they have
> anything to do with space operations.

You don't have to have certs to work on cryo...
the circulating gas is completely harmless.
And when you're a chief site tech, it *does* mean
you know what you're talking about, even at NASA.

> > Why do you think I've been kicking your ***
> > so bad?
>
> lol you think this because you actually believe your own lies.

I think most of us can read... welch.

> > Who do you think you're messing
> > around with?
>
> a LIAR. :-)

Then why the goofy smiley?

> > You're just an HVAC chump.
>
> lol, even with the mild temps ill gross at least $1500 today. :-)

Good... use the money to buy a clue! Improve yourself!
I've heard of -----s that make more, BTW... are they
better than you?
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic)."... Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4goge44govec@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5hqIe.951$3M4.462@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> >> lol you find a real one (you know, not something youre LYING about,
liar)
> >> and then you might have something. :-)
> >
> > Do you regard yourself as qualified in cryo? I mean,
> > are you stupid, or a liar?
>
> i never claimed to be qualified in cryo. cryo does not fall under my
> refrigeration certification.

Is it not in the field of refrigeration? Did you not
say:

>the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
>source/geo thermal.

?? As I said before, are you lying, or just stupid?

>
> oh, but id bet im more qualified to work on cryo than you are to talk
about
> it.

I've already talked about it... you haven't. Points
for me. Go ahead... spout some of your infinite
knowlege... just don't cheat like Bill does.
Actually, I don't trust you... you've already proven
yourself unworthy of trust.

> > But I *did* give you an alternative to
> > replacing a head pressure control
>
> and it was TOTAL --------! :-) beating your car with a hammer is an
> "alternative" to changing the tire but that doesnt mean its correct.

More spin... you've already agreed with me that
if the ambient is not going to go low that the
head pressure control can be bypassed.
I win... again.

> > Chief site tech, Nate... four years, my own
> > $6M site, 82 foot dish to maintain.
>
> and it doesnt mean you know ---- about refrigeration. :-)

Once again... stonewalling. Talk about cryo for us...
but don't cheat!

> > Two
> > complete, separate cryo systems, with
> > 5 or 6 refrigerators on each. 15 Kelvins...
> > that's some cold stuff, Nate... colder than
> > you'll *ever* work on. I call that *refrigeration*.
>
> show me your certification or youre simply LYING. hell even NASA has
> janitors who can claim they work at NASA, doesnt mean that they have
> anything to do with space operations.

You don't have to have certs to work on cryo...
the circulating gas is completely harmless.
And when you're a chief site tech, it *does* mean
you know what you're talking about, even at NASA.

> > Why do you think I've been kicking your ***
> > so bad?
>
> lol you think this because you actually believe your own lies.

I think most of us can read... welch.

> > Who do you think you're messing
> > around with?
>
> a LIAR. :-)

Then why the goofy smiley?

> > You're just an HVAC chump.
>
> lol, even with the mild temps ill gross at least $1500 today. :-)

Good... use the money to buy a clue! Improve yourself!
I've heard of -----s that make more, BTW... are they
better than you?
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic)."... Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4goge44govec@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5hqIe.951$3M4.462@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> >> lol you find a real one (you know, not something youre LYING about,
liar)
> >> and then you might have something. :-)
> >
> > Do you regard yourself as qualified in cryo? I mean,
> > are you stupid, or a liar?
>
> i never claimed to be qualified in cryo. cryo does not fall under my
> refrigeration certification.

Is it not in the field of refrigeration? Did you not
say:

>the only area i dont consider myself qualified on yet is ground
>source/geo thermal.

?? As I said before, are you lying, or just stupid?

>
> oh, but id bet im more qualified to work on cryo than you are to talk
about
> it.

I've already talked about it... you haven't. Points
for me. Go ahead... spout some of your infinite
knowlege... just don't cheat like Bill does.
Actually, I don't trust you... you've already proven
yourself unworthy of trust.

> > But I *did* give you an alternative to
> > replacing a head pressure control
>
> and it was TOTAL --------! :-) beating your car with a hammer is an
> "alternative" to changing the tire but that doesnt mean its correct.

More spin... you've already agreed with me that
if the ambient is not going to go low that the
head pressure control can be bypassed.
I win... again.

> > Chief site tech, Nate... four years, my own
> > $6M site, 82 foot dish to maintain.
>
> and it doesnt mean you know ---- about refrigeration. :-)

Once again... stonewalling. Talk about cryo for us...
but don't cheat!

> > Two
> > complete, separate cryo systems, with
> > 5 or 6 refrigerators on each. 15 Kelvins...
> > that's some cold stuff, Nate... colder than
> > you'll *ever* work on. I call that *refrigeration*.
>
> show me your certification or youre simply LYING. hell even NASA has
> janitors who can claim they work at NASA, doesnt mean that they have
> anything to do with space operations.

You don't have to have certs to work on cryo...
the circulating gas is completely harmless.
And when you're a chief site tech, it *does* mean
you know what you're talking about, even at NASA.

> > Why do you think I've been kicking your ***
> > so bad?
>
> lol you think this because you actually believe your own lies.

I think most of us can read... welch.

> > Who do you think you're messing
> > around with?
>
> a LIAR. :-)

Then why the goofy smiley?

> > You're just an HVAC chump.
>
> lol, even with the mild temps ill gross at least $1500 today. :-)

Good... use the money to buy a clue! Improve yourself!
I've heard of -----s that make more, BTW... are they
better than you?
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic)."... Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4fgc3k862mee@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4VpIe.948$3M4.21@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
> > Exactly as I said... he can't give up.
>
> not what they taught you in your seminars, eh? :-)

What seminars, welch?

> > I've proved him wrong
>
> lol, you are a liar. you gave me links with "proudliberal" in them and
you
> consider that a credible source of information? of course not, you just
> hope that if you tell the same LIE over and over that someone will believe
> you.

Why not? You used the manual for your leak detector
to try to make a case for the impossibility of stratospheric
CFC's, something that has been measured for decades.
And the 'telling the same lie' thing is starting to look like
transferrence... lots of 'you wish' going on here. You're
a case, Nate... we all understand that now.


> > Watch yourself
> > in dealing with this person.
>
> ha! as if ANYBODY in this newsgroup needs YOU of all people to advise
> anyone else.

Yeah, you're right... it only takes a few posts for *anyone*
to determine how full of ---- you are. My bull-baiting is
probably just gilding the lily.

> > It's all he's got, folks... put money on it.
>
> yup. i presented fact, and you told lies.

Deeper, Nate... dig the hole deeper!
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4fgc3k862mee@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4VpIe.948$3M4.21@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
> > Exactly as I said... he can't give up.
>
> not what they taught you in your seminars, eh? :-)

What seminars, welch?

> > I've proved him wrong
>
> lol, you are a liar. you gave me links with "proudliberal" in them and
you
> consider that a credible source of information? of course not, you just
> hope that if you tell the same LIE over and over that someone will believe
> you.

Why not? You used the manual for your leak detector
to try to make a case for the impossibility of stratospheric
CFC's, something that has been measured for decades.
And the 'telling the same lie' thing is starting to look like
transferrence... lots of 'you wish' going on here. You're
a case, Nate... we all understand that now.


> > Watch yourself
> > in dealing with this person.
>
> ha! as if ANYBODY in this newsgroup needs YOU of all people to advise
> anyone else.

Yeah, you're right... it only takes a few posts for *anyone*
to determine how full of ---- you are. My bull-baiting is
probably just gilding the lily.

> > It's all he's got, folks... put money on it.
>
> yup. i presented fact, and you told lies.

Deeper, Nate... dig the hole deeper!
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4fgc3k862mee@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4VpIe.948$3M4.21@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
> > Exactly as I said... he can't give up.
>
> not what they taught you in your seminars, eh? :-)

What seminars, welch?

> > I've proved him wrong
>
> lol, you are a liar. you gave me links with "proudliberal" in them and
you
> consider that a credible source of information? of course not, you just
> hope that if you tell the same LIE over and over that someone will believe
> you.

Why not? You used the manual for your leak detector
to try to make a case for the impossibility of stratospheric
CFC's, something that has been measured for decades.
And the 'telling the same lie' thing is starting to look like
transferrence... lots of 'you wish' going on here. You're
a case, Nate... we all understand that now.


> > Watch yourself
> > in dealing with this person.
>
> ha! as if ANYBODY in this newsgroup needs YOU of all people to advise
> anyone else.

Yeah, you're right... it only takes a few posts for *anyone*
to determine how full of ---- you are. My bull-baiting is
probably just gilding the lily.

> > It's all he's got, folks... put money on it.
>
> yup. i presented fact, and you told lies.

Deeper, Nate... dig the hole deeper!
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4fgc3k862mee@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4VpIe.948$3M4.21@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
> > Exactly as I said... he can't give up.
>
> not what they taught you in your seminars, eh? :-)

What seminars, welch?

> > I've proved him wrong
>
> lol, you are a liar. you gave me links with "proudliberal" in them and
you
> consider that a credible source of information? of course not, you just
> hope that if you tell the same LIE over and over that someone will believe
> you.

Why not? You used the manual for your leak detector
to try to make a case for the impossibility of stratospheric
CFC's, something that has been measured for decades.
And the 'telling the same lie' thing is starting to look like
transferrence... lots of 'you wish' going on here. You're
a case, Nate... we all understand that now.


> > Watch yourself
> > in dealing with this person.
>
> ha! as if ANYBODY in this newsgroup needs YOU of all people to advise
> anyone else.

Yeah, you're right... it only takes a few posts for *anyone*
to determine how full of ---- you are. My bull-baiting is
probably just gilding the lily.

> > It's all he's got, folks... put money on it.
>
> yup. i presented fact, and you told lies.

Deeper, Nate... dig the hole deeper!
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4gb3q90thuf8@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:U8qIe.950$3M4.520@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> > That's why it's so important for you to
> > weasel and welch your way into a modified spec
>
> LIAR! my specification was clear in my VERY FIRST post to you telling you
> what an HMC was to begin with.

Don't spin so hard, Nate... your poor widdle head
might fall off! We can all read, btw.

> > As I stated in my first post
> > after you revealed what the magic letters HMC
> > stood for (a brand name, btw), it allows the
> > cooling system more bandwidth, i.e. operation
> > in larger extremes.
>
> WRONG.

Then why the incredible battle over low ambient?

> > I googled HMC and found the proper name,
> > as well as examples... I was *guessing*, and
> > beat your silly challenge.
>
> lol no you didnt! you havent been right yet on anything youve said about
> it!

Obviously you're wrong there... otherwise, why
the protracted battle over the lack of the low ambient spec?

> > If the head pressure
> > control was leaking, and low ambient was not
> > in the forecast
>
> for starters, hmc's dont just develop leaks.....but ill play along becaust
> its possible supermarket hired a minimum wage flunky like you who doesnt
> know his *** from a hole in the ground and when he snuck into the mech
room
> to smoke his lil doobie on his break he could trip and cause damage.....so
> ill play along to this point.

Believe it or not, *anything* can develop a leak...

> > you could bypass it with two
> > valves and a straight piece of pipe, to replace
> > it after the part came in on order.
>
> lol......NO! please stop asking for help from those as ignorant as you
are
> and give me a REAL solution. do you have any idea just how ------- stupid
> your suggestion is?
>
> lol, of course you dont. you havent a clue as to the depths of your own
> ignorance but that doesnt stop you does it? :-)
>
> two valves and a straight piece of pipe......BUWHAHAHA! :-)

Until you give an alternative, you're just pissing in
the wind...

> >> lol --------, liar. i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees. now squirm boy!
:-)
> >
> > Doesn't matter
>
> TRANSLATION --> "agreed, you DID clearly state -30 degrees" :-)

I did read somewhere about -30 degrees.. it was not in
the original challenge, and was presented with a 'such as'
caveat, which means it was not a binding specification.
We *all* can read.

> > you didn't specify it in the original
> > challenge, the only document that matters.
>
> LIAR. it was indeed in my original challenge TO YOU in the SAME post
where
> i told you what the hmc was to begin with!

There was no challenge in your post to me... go
back and read it.

> > You are a complete
> > spoilsport and loser.
>
> yeah, because of your two valves and a pipe. LOL!

I had won the challenge long before I posted that... and
you haven't explained why it wouldn't work! OK, I'll
give you a vacuum bleeder fitting on the piece of
pipe... happy now?

> > do you do cryo?
>
> do you? :-) if so, lets see your certification. when you fail to
produce
> it, dont bother with trying to LIE your way out of it. :-)

Google me... see my bona fides. Then kiss my ***.

> > You didn't 'outline' anything
>
> LIAR. i clearly stated -30 degrees.

We can all read, Nate... it's so obvious. Either you
refer to the original challenge, or you refer to a post
that doesn't contain a challenge, and doesn't give
a spec, but an example. You're spinning, and welching.

> >> lol.....youre actually trying to suggest that a URL including
> > "proudliberal"
> >> is credible? BUWHAHAHA! :-)
> >
> > And why not?
>
> lol you are PATHETIC. here it is folks, stephen admitting that he
considers
> pages with "proudliberal" in their web address to be impartial sources of
> credible information. LOL!

See? More logical fallacies... you're claiming that if
the site said "the earth is almost spherical" then that would
be wrong... that's the worst kind of fallacy. It means that
you can't, or won't, acknowlege the truth when it is in front
of you. What if the site said 'proudconservative'? Would it
be wrong then too? You are indeed a case...

> > Your political proclivities have
> > blinded you
>
> i have not quoted one single link from rushlinbaugh.com or any other
> political source because theyre also biased.

That doesn't mean that you're not committing
the logical fallacy of ad hominem, abusive...

> > You are not
> > addressing the NOAA stuff
>
> --------. i asked for links that were credible and ruled out self-serving
> government sources from the very beginning.

See... more logical fallacies. Are you an
anarchist, or a Luddite? I tend to believe
the latter...

> > C'mon, you know your limitations
>
> exactly, and i admitted them to you when you were asking me questions
about
> tar. i know nothing about tar and told you that. yet, when asked
questions
> beyond your very limited field instead of owning up to your own
limitations
> to just tell lies, make excuses, and cry like a little kid. instead of
just
> saying "gee, i dunno anything about that (you know, like i did) you made
> references to hitler, my -----, and anything else you could bring up in
> hopes of smoking the fact that you were an ignorant fool. well stevie,
the
> smoke blew away and your ignorance is blinding. :-)

But your ----- *is* like Hitlers! One ball, too...

Anyway, you are a fool, and we can all see that.
But most importantly, you are a welch, and not
to be trusted... and I'm doing the public a service
by pointing this out.
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4gb3q90thuf8@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:U8qIe.950$3M4.520@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> > That's why it's so important for you to
> > weasel and welch your way into a modified spec
>
> LIAR! my specification was clear in my VERY FIRST post to you telling you
> what an HMC was to begin with.

Don't spin so hard, Nate... your poor widdle head
might fall off! We can all read, btw.

> > As I stated in my first post
> > after you revealed what the magic letters HMC
> > stood for (a brand name, btw), it allows the
> > cooling system more bandwidth, i.e. operation
> > in larger extremes.
>
> WRONG.

Then why the incredible battle over low ambient?

> > I googled HMC and found the proper name,
> > as well as examples... I was *guessing*, and
> > beat your silly challenge.
>
> lol no you didnt! you havent been right yet on anything youve said about
> it!

Obviously you're wrong there... otherwise, why
the protracted battle over the lack of the low ambient spec?

> > If the head pressure
> > control was leaking, and low ambient was not
> > in the forecast
>
> for starters, hmc's dont just develop leaks.....but ill play along becaust
> its possible supermarket hired a minimum wage flunky like you who doesnt
> know his *** from a hole in the ground and when he snuck into the mech
room
> to smoke his lil doobie on his break he could trip and cause damage.....so
> ill play along to this point.

Believe it or not, *anything* can develop a leak...

> > you could bypass it with two
> > valves and a straight piece of pipe, to replace
> > it after the part came in on order.
>
> lol......NO! please stop asking for help from those as ignorant as you
are
> and give me a REAL solution. do you have any idea just how ------- stupid
> your suggestion is?
>
> lol, of course you dont. you havent a clue as to the depths of your own
> ignorance but that doesnt stop you does it? :-)
>
> two valves and a straight piece of pipe......BUWHAHAHA! :-)

Until you give an alternative, you're just pissing in
the wind...

> >> lol --------, liar. i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees. now squirm boy!
:-)
> >
> > Doesn't matter
>
> TRANSLATION --> "agreed, you DID clearly state -30 degrees" :-)

I did read somewhere about -30 degrees.. it was not in
the original challenge, and was presented with a 'such as'
caveat, which means it was not a binding specification.
We *all* can read.

> > you didn't specify it in the original
> > challenge, the only document that matters.
>
> LIAR. it was indeed in my original challenge TO YOU in the SAME post
where
> i told you what the hmc was to begin with!

There was no challenge in your post to me... go
back and read it.

> > You are a complete
> > spoilsport and loser.
>
> yeah, because of your two valves and a pipe. LOL!

I had won the challenge long before I posted that... and
you haven't explained why it wouldn't work! OK, I'll
give you a vacuum bleeder fitting on the piece of
pipe... happy now?

> > do you do cryo?
>
> do you? :-) if so, lets see your certification. when you fail to
produce
> it, dont bother with trying to LIE your way out of it. :-)

Google me... see my bona fides. Then kiss my ***.

> > You didn't 'outline' anything
>
> LIAR. i clearly stated -30 degrees.

We can all read, Nate... it's so obvious. Either you
refer to the original challenge, or you refer to a post
that doesn't contain a challenge, and doesn't give
a spec, but an example. You're spinning, and welching.

> >> lol.....youre actually trying to suggest that a URL including
> > "proudliberal"
> >> is credible? BUWHAHAHA! :-)
> >
> > And why not?
>
> lol you are PATHETIC. here it is folks, stephen admitting that he
considers
> pages with "proudliberal" in their web address to be impartial sources of
> credible information. LOL!

See? More logical fallacies... you're claiming that if
the site said "the earth is almost spherical" then that would
be wrong... that's the worst kind of fallacy. It means that
you can't, or won't, acknowlege the truth when it is in front
of you. What if the site said 'proudconservative'? Would it
be wrong then too? You are indeed a case...

> > Your political proclivities have
> > blinded you
>
> i have not quoted one single link from rushlinbaugh.com or any other
> political source because theyre also biased.

That doesn't mean that you're not committing
the logical fallacy of ad hominem, abusive...

> > You are not
> > addressing the NOAA stuff
>
> --------. i asked for links that were credible and ruled out self-serving
> government sources from the very beginning.

See... more logical fallacies. Are you an
anarchist, or a Luddite? I tend to believe
the latter...

> > C'mon, you know your limitations
>
> exactly, and i admitted them to you when you were asking me questions
about
> tar. i know nothing about tar and told you that. yet, when asked
questions
> beyond your very limited field instead of owning up to your own
limitations
> to just tell lies, make excuses, and cry like a little kid. instead of
just
> saying "gee, i dunno anything about that (you know, like i did) you made
> references to hitler, my -----, and anything else you could bring up in
> hopes of smoking the fact that you were an ignorant fool. well stevie,
the
> smoke blew away and your ignorance is blinding. :-)

But your ----- *is* like Hitlers! One ball, too...

Anyway, you are a fool, and we can all see that.
But most importantly, you are a welch, and not
to be trusted... and I'm doing the public a service
by pointing this out.
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:11f4gb3q90thuf8@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:U8qIe.950$3M4.520@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. ..
> > That's why it's so important for you to
> > weasel and welch your way into a modified spec
>
> LIAR! my specification was clear in my VERY FIRST post to you telling you
> what an HMC was to begin with.

Don't spin so hard, Nate... your poor widdle head
might fall off! We can all read, btw.

> > As I stated in my first post
> > after you revealed what the magic letters HMC
> > stood for (a brand name, btw), it allows the
> > cooling system more bandwidth, i.e. operation
> > in larger extremes.
>
> WRONG.

Then why the incredible battle over low ambient?

> > I googled HMC and found the proper name,
> > as well as examples... I was *guessing*, and
> > beat your silly challenge.
>
> lol no you didnt! you havent been right yet on anything youve said about
> it!

Obviously you're wrong there... otherwise, why
the protracted battle over the lack of the low ambient spec?

> > If the head pressure
> > control was leaking, and low ambient was not
> > in the forecast
>
> for starters, hmc's dont just develop leaks.....but ill play along becaust
> its possible supermarket hired a minimum wage flunky like you who doesnt
> know his *** from a hole in the ground and when he snuck into the mech
room
> to smoke his lil doobie on his break he could trip and cause damage.....so
> ill play along to this point.

Believe it or not, *anything* can develop a leak...

> > you could bypass it with two
> > valves and a straight piece of pipe, to replace
> > it after the part came in on order.
>
> lol......NO! please stop asking for help from those as ignorant as you
are
> and give me a REAL solution. do you have any idea just how ------- stupid
> your suggestion is?
>
> lol, of course you dont. you havent a clue as to the depths of your own
> ignorance but that doesnt stop you does it? :-)
>
> two valves and a straight piece of pipe......BUWHAHAHA! :-)

Until you give an alternative, you're just pissing in
the wind...

> >> lol --------, liar. i CLEARLY stated -30 degrees. now squirm boy!
:-)
> >
> > Doesn't matter
>
> TRANSLATION --> "agreed, you DID clearly state -30 degrees" :-)

I did read somewhere about -30 degrees.. it was not in
the original challenge, and was presented with a 'such as'
caveat, which means it was not a binding specification.
We *all* can read.

> > you didn't specify it in the original
> > challenge, the only document that matters.
>
> LIAR. it was indeed in my original challenge TO YOU in the SAME post
where
> i told you what the hmc was to begin with!

There was no challenge in your post to me... go
back and read it.

> > You are a complete
> > spoilsport and loser.
>
> yeah, because of your two valves and a pipe. LOL!

I had won the challenge long before I posted that... and
you haven't explained why it wouldn't work! OK, I'll
give you a vacuum bleeder fitting on the piece of
pipe... happy now?

> > do you do cryo?
>
> do you? :-) if so, lets see your certification. when you fail to
produce
> it, dont bother with trying to LIE your way out of it. :-)

Google me... see my bona fides. Then kiss my ***.

> > You didn't 'outline' anything
>
> LIAR. i clearly stated -30 degrees.

We can all read, Nate... it's so obvious. Either you
refer to the original challenge, or you refer to a post
that doesn't contain a challenge, and doesn't give
a spec, but an example. You're spinning, and welching.

> >> lol.....youre actually trying to suggest that a URL including
> > "proudliberal"
> >> is credible? BUWHAHAHA! :-)
> >
> > And why not?
>
> lol you are PATHETIC. here it is folks, stephen admitting that he
considers
> pages with "proudliberal" in their web address to be impartial sources of
> credible information. LOL!

See? More logical fallacies... you're claiming that if
the site said "the earth is almost spherical" then that would
be wrong... that's the worst kind of fallacy. It means that
you can't, or won't, acknowlege the truth when it is in front
of you. What if the site said 'proudconservative'? Would it
be wrong then too? You are indeed a case...

> > Your political proclivities have
> > blinded you
>
> i have not quoted one single link from rushlinbaugh.com or any other
> political source because theyre also biased.

That doesn't mean that you're not committing
the logical fallacy of ad hominem, abusive...

> > You are not
> > addressing the NOAA stuff
>
> --------. i asked for links that were credible and ruled out self-serving
> government sources from the very beginning.

See... more logical fallacies. Are you an
anarchist, or a Luddite? I tend to believe
the latter...

> > C'mon, you know your limitations
>
> exactly, and i admitted them to you when you were asking me questions
about
> tar. i know nothing about tar and told you that. yet, when asked
questions
> beyond your very limited field instead of owning up to your own
limitations
> to just tell lies, make excuses, and cry like a little kid. instead of
just
> saying "gee, i dunno anything about that (you know, like i did) you made
> references to hitler, my -----, and anything else you could bring up in
> hopes of smoking the fact that you were an ignorant fool. well stevie,
the
> smoke blew away and your ignorance is blinding. :-)

But your ----- *is* like Hitlers! One ball, too...

Anyway, you are a fool, and we can all see that.
But most importantly, you are a welch, and not
to be trusted... and I'm doing the public a service
by pointing this out.
__
Steve
"i recognize my limitations and
immediately own it (sic). " -- Nate
..