| 18-04-2022 01:41 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21600) |
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Another possibility is that you though it was bad for you, and you simply were suffering a panic.
I spent two years hanging out in bedrooms with mega pervs and then I lived with one who was nice so I'm not into panic.
It was that white stuff that comes out the back of the car and it smelled nasty.
White smoke? Sounds like coolant was being burned in the car. Did it have a somewhat sweet odor?
If so, the head gasket was probably blown.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-04-2022 01:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
GretaGroupie wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
LPG has few emissions...
I have to look up LPG and get back to you. Light propane gas I rhink?
LPG is mostly propane (a hydrocarbon) and possibly some butane (another hydrocarbon).
Burning it produces carbon dioxide and water.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-04-2022 04:41 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
Into the Night wrote:
GretaGroupie wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
LPG has few emissions...
I have to look up LPG and get back to you. Light propane gas I rhink?
LPG is mostly propane (a hydrocarbon) and possibly some butane (another hydrocarbon).
Burning it produces carbon dioxide and water.
They also add something to give it an odor. So you know when it's not burning, just leaking out. I use to know the name, but it wasn't that important. |
| 18-04-2022 18:13 |
GretaGroupie ★★☆☆☆
(350) |
Into the Night wrote:
Mine too. People underestimate just how important trucks are.
I know and we usually get about 30 to 40 a night but we almost had 100 last holiday and I do not like it when it gets that busy cause we have to have another girl work my shift with me and the bus boys get tired fast. I do not mind another girl working with me and the money is crazey good but I like it a bit slower so I can talk to the truckers and I still make enough.
Maybe one day I will drive a truck but only if I got tired of the diner and I do not think that will ever happen.
 me when i am real old at the diner - ha, ha
 |
| 18-04-2022 18:19 |
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆
(350) |
Into the Night wrote:
White smoke? Sounds like coolant was being burned in the car. Did it have a somewhat sweet odor?
All I remember is that the smell burned my nose and I had to run outside for fresh air.
NOTE TO ITN AND HARVEY: Thank you for telling me about LPG and it is called liquid petroleum gas and is when they turn the gas into water so it is safer to put on a boat.
|
|
| 18-04-2022 20:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GretaGroupie wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
LPG has few emissions...
I have to look up LPG and get back to you. Light propane gas I rhink?
LPG is mostly propane (a hydrocarbon) and possibly some butane (another hydrocarbon).
Burning it produces carbon dioxide and water.
They also add something to give it an odor. So you know when it's not burning, just leaking out. I use to know the name, but it wasn't that important.
Methyl mercaptan. It has a mild smell of rotten eggs (more like cabbage that has gone bad).
Before putting the plumbing to use, plumbers typically use something better smelling, often a peppermint odor. They also use a fine particulate (smoke) that helps to make the leak visible.
Such smoke machines are also used in automotive repair to detect leaks in vacuum, fuel systems, and even exhaust systems.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-04-2022 21:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Mine too. People underestimate just how important trucks are.
I know and we usually get about 30 to 40 a night but we almost had 100 last holiday and I do not like it when it gets that busy cause we have to have another girl work my shift with me and the bus boys get tired fast. I do not mind another girl working with me and the money is crazey good but I like it a bit slower so I can talk to the truckers and I still make enough.
Maybe one day I will drive a truck but only if I got tired of the diner and I do not think that will ever happen.
me when i am real old at the diner - ha, ha
Save up for a good truck driving school, then get your commercial license. Talk to the truckers. They can recommend a good school and how best to break into the biz.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-04-2022 15:49 |
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆
(350) |
Into the Night wrote:
Save up for a good truck driving school, then get your commercial license.
Yes I have talked to them about that and they all say I would be a good trucker but I am not ready for that.
Maybe I could get a trucker with a trailer that was a diner on the back and travel around serving food
|
| 20-04-2022 20:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Save up for a good truck driving school, then get your commercial license.
Yes I have talked to them about that and they all say I would be a good trucker but I am not ready for that.
Maybe I could get a trucker with a trailer that was a diner on the back and travel around serving food
Sort of like a large version of the taco truck.
Fairs an festivals would love it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-04-2022 16:56 |
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆
(350) |
Into the Night wrote:
Sort of like a large version of the taco truck.
Fairs an festivals would love it.
Yes I could drive up and down the highway making food for all my trucker buds
|
| RE: Gasoline is mainly heptane.01-05-2022 20:00 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
Gasoline is mainly heptane.
I mean, if this was supposed to be a lesson in organic chemistry.
Is "septane" a real word?
I wouldn't know. I never worked in a hydrocarbon lab at a major refinery.
Or did I?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
These three fuels are often called a 'fossil' fuel because it was tought they came from dinosaurs. The Sinclair oil company logo is a picture of a brontosaurus. This teaching is wrong.
Ok, so I know methane are farts, but where do the other one's come from.
The prof said they were from "orgamic" matter (?) that decayed into oily goop over millions of years ago.
No, they aren't.
During WW2, the Allies were putting the screws to the German economy in every way they could to try to shut down the German war machine. Among the things Germany needed was fuel for their tanks and aircraft. They imported that oil.
As oil became scarce in Germany, their chemists (the best in the world at the time) had a go at making oil synthetically. They succeeded. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process. What you do is take carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide) and combine it with hydrogen using high temperatures and pressure. An iron screen is used to pass the gases through and acts as a catalyst.
The result is hydrocarbons of varying lengths. In other words, light sweet crude oil.
These same conditions exist naturally underground. High temperatures, high pressure, and the presence of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and iron. In other words, the Earth itself is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor.
Making oil synthetically takes more energy than you get back by burning the oil. It therefore is not practical in ordinary circumstances. It did help keep the German war machine running though.
It's cheaper to simply drill for it. Pretty no matter where you make a hole, if it's deep enough, you WILL find oil. Unfortunately, wells are priced per foot of depth. It ain't cheap to go very deep.
Oil comes nearest the surface at edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. Examples are the North Seas (north of the British Isles), the North Slopes of Alaska (and indeed out under the polar sea), the Mideast, off the shores of the SDTC, especially down by Baja, the Gulf sea (south of Texas) and on up into Texas. Oil also comes near the surface where shales form, such as the midwest of the United States on up into Canada, Pennsylvania, and a few other similar places.
Both oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons, so you find both the same places. The only difference between them is the length of the hydrocarbon.
A hydrocarbon is a chain of carbon atoms strung together surrounded by hydrogen atoms. It is a compound. Depending on the length of the hydrocarbon, you get different things:
1 C long is methane, or natural gas.
2 C long is ethane.
3 C long is propane (some gas stations sell it from a bit white tank).
4 C long is butane (lighter fluid).
...
7 C long is septane (most gasoline).
8 C long is octane (some gasoline). This is the 'octane' you see on gas pumps, or it's equivalent. It burns a bit less well than septane.
...
As you get up to really long chains, you get into asphalt. This sticky thick goo is mixed with gravel and sand and you get the stuff you make roads out of.
Crude oil contains a mix of different length hydrocarbons.
A refinery boils crude oil and separates it by size (length), since each size condenses out as a different temperature. That big tower you see at such places is the boiler/condenser assembly. Most of the rest of the refinery is plumbing and tanks to store everything in.
It is possible to use chemistry to 'stitch together' shorter chains into longer ones.
It is also possible to use chemistry to cut long chains into shorter ones.
In this way a refinery can optimize yield for a desired product.
So you can optimize for gasoline, at the cost of say...diesel oil. |
| 01-05-2022 21:09 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14416) |
Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?
"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.
|
| RE: Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?01-05-2022 21:50 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
In a world of alternative facts where alkalinity is NOT a measure of acid neutralizing capacity that is not represented by pH but is measured in moles or calcium carbonate equivalents.
So much science that you are so highly qualified to teach.
Preach on, brother!
Your cult turns out to be smaller than I thought.
No me habia molestado con leer la porqueria de conversacion entre locos cuando calcule cinco seguidores creyentes. Quizas tres y medio, cuando veo que algunos trolls tambien te odian al payaso feo.
Where did sweet little Greta G go, anyway? Doesn't she like you, either?
-------------------------------------------------------
quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?
"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.
[/quote] |
| 01-05-2022 21:56 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?
"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.
Looks like the hole creepy clowns climb out of... |
| RE: Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.01-05-2022 22:13 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.
Truly "pure" water contains no carbonic acid.
Rain water is not pure. It contains dissolved carbon dioxide, a tiny fraction of which is in the form of carbonic acid.
Or should I say "carbolic" acid like the local genius calls it?
In the 1980s, atmospheric CO2 was lower.
"Pure" rain water, i.e. without any anthropogenic sulfuric acid or nitric acid, used to have pH about 5.65
Atmospheric CO2 has risen since then, and natural rain pH has gone lower.
"Degassed" pure water has pH 7.
The only oxyanion it contains, among the long list of oxyanions that CAN contribute acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), is hydroxide (OH-).
At pH 7, hydroxide is present at 0.0000001 molar concentration.
The alkalinity of pure water is 0.0000001 moles per liter.
The alkalinity of natural rain water is still 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), PLUS the extremely small amount of carbonic acid that dissociates into bicarbonate, or even deprotonates twice to make carbonate. The pH is less than 5.6.
The list of oxyanions that can supply acid neutralizing capacity is very long.
Bicarbonate is the biggest player. Hydroxide is virtually negligible as a contributor to the alkalinity in sea water.
Have fun in your echo chamber.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?
"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.
Looks like the hole creepy clowns climb out of... |
|
| 01-05-2022 22:43 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.
Truly "pure" water contains no carbonic acid.
Rain water is not pure. It contains dissolved carbon dioxide, a tiny fraction of which is in the form of carbonic acid.
Or should I say "carbolic" acid like the local genius calls it?
In the 1980s, atmospheric CO2 was lower.
"Pure" rain water, i.e. without any anthropogenic sulfuric acid or nitric acid, used to have pH about 5.65
Atmospheric CO2 has risen since then, and natural rain pH has gone lower.
"Degassed" pure water has pH 7.
The only oxyanion it contains, among the long list of oxyanions that CAN contribute acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), is hydroxide (OH-).
At pH 7, hydroxide is present at 0.0000001 molar concentration.
The alkalinity of pure water is 0.0000001 moles per liter.
The alkalinity of natural rain water is still 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), PLUS the extremely small amount of carbonic acid that dissociates into bicarbonate, or even deprotonates twice to make carbonate. The pH is less than 5.6.
The list of oxyanions that can supply acid neutralizing capacity is very long.
Bicarbonate is the biggest player. Hydroxide is virtually negligible as a contributor to the alkalinity in sea water.
Have fun in your echo chamber.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?
"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.
Looks like the hole creepy clowns climb out of...
Attached image:
 |
| 02-05-2022 01:45 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
squeal over's sock wrote:Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
I do not.
Do you really believe that the ocean's pH has been accurately measured millions of times?
Do you really believe that humanity can have a non-negligible effect on the ocean's alkalinity?
squeal over's sock wrote:Your cult turns out to be smaller than I thought.
I bet. Zero is the correct number.
squeal over's sock wrote:No me habia molestado con leer la porqueria de conversacion entre locos cuando calcule cinco seguidores creyentes.
Mejor decir "a leer" en vez de "con leer."
Es que no sabes sumar. La cifra es cero. Deja de inventar mierda.
squeal over's sock wrote:Where did sweet little Greta G go, anyway? Doesn't she like you, either?
Nobody likes me, except for you. You're my best friend and I know that you'll always back me unconditionally. Otherwise, nobody likes a know-it-all, which is why I have no friends besides you.
. |
| 02-05-2022 23:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Im a BM wrote:
Gasoline is mainly heptane.
I mean, if this was supposed to be a lesson in organic chemistry.
You deny chemistry. You don't know it.
Im a BM wrote:
Is "septane" a real word?
Yes. It means the same thing as heptane.
Im a BM wrote:
I wouldn't know. I never worked in a hydrocarbon lab at a major refinery.
Or did I?
You didn't.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-05-2022 23:26 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Im a BM wrote:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
They are. I guess you think that something that lives just as easily in water or on land is not an amphibian. Did you know frogs are amphibians too?
Im a BM wrote:
In a world of alternative facts
No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means.
Im a BM wrote:
where alkalinity is NOT a measure of acid neutralizing capacity that is not represented by pH but is measured in moles or calcium carbonate equivalents.
Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
So much science that you are so highly qualified to teach.
It is YOU that denies chemistry, the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and can't seem to figure out alligators or frogs.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-05-2022 23:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.
Pure water has no CO2 in it. Water isn't atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
Truly "pure" water contains no carbonic acid.
Rain water is not pure. It contains dissolved carbon dioxide, a tiny fraction of which is in the form of carbonic acid.
So? It also contains any dust that was washed out of the air.
Im a BM wrote:
Or should I say "carbolic" acid like the local genius calls it?
Carbolic acid is not carbonic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
In the 1980s, atmospheric CO2 was lower.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Im a BM wrote:
"Pure" rain water, i.e. without any anthropogenic sulfuric acid or nitric acid, used to have pH about 5.65
It is not possible to measure the global pH of rain water.
Im a BM wrote:
Atmospheric CO2 has risen since then, and natural rain pH has gone lower.
Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"Degassed" pure water has pH 7.
No such thing. Water isn't a gas (unless you boil it).
Im a BM wrote:
The only oxyanion it contains, among the long list of oxyanions that CAN contribute acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), is hydroxide (OH-).
Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
At pH 7, hydroxide is present at 0.0000001 molar concentration.
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of pure water is 0.0000001 moles per liter.
Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of natural rain water is still 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), PLUS the extremely small amount of carbonic acid that dissociates into bicarbonate, or even deprotonates twice to make carbonate.
Not chemicals. Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The pH is less than 5.6.
It is not possible to measure the global pH of rainwater.
Im a BM wrote:
The list of oxyanions that can supply acid neutralizing capacity is very long.
Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Bicarbonate is the biggest player.
No such chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydroxide is virtually negligible as a contributor to the alkalinity in sea water.
No such chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Have fun in your echo chamber.
You are describing yourself (and your socks).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?07-05-2022 20:11 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1249) |
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
I do not.
Do you really believe that the ocean's pH has been accurately measured millions of times?
Do you really believe that humanity can have a non-negligible effect on the ocean's alkalinity?
squeal over's sock wrote:Your cult turns out to be smaller than I thought.
I bet. Zero is the correct number.
squeal over's sock wrote:No me habia molestado con leer la porqueria de conversacion entre locos cuando calcule cinco seguidores creyentes.
Mejor decir "a leer" en vez de "con leer."
Es que no sabes sumar. La cifra es cero. Deja de inventar mierda.
squeal over's sock wrote:Where did sweet little Greta G go, anyway? Doesn't she like you, either?
Nobody likes me, except for you. You're my best friend and I know that you'll always back me unconditionally. Otherwise, nobody likes a know-it-all, which is why I have no friends besides you.
. |
| RE: "I do not" really believe that alligators are amphibians10-05-2022 09:11 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
I do not.
Do you really believe that the ocean's pH has been accurately measured millions of times?
Do you really believe that humanity can have a non-negligible effect on the ocean's alkalinity?
squeal over's sock wrote:Your cult turns out to be smaller than I thought.
I bet. Zero is the correct number.
squeal over's sock wrote:No me habia molestado con leer la porqueria de conversacion entre locos cuando calcule cinco seguidores creyentes.
Mejor decir "a leer" en vez de "con leer."
Es que no sabes sumar. La cifra es cero. Deja de inventar mierda.
squeal over's sock wrote:Where did sweet little Greta G go, anyway? Doesn't she like you, either?
Nobody likes me, except for you. You're my best friend and I know that you'll always back me unconditionally. Otherwise, nobody likes a know-it-all, which is why I have no friends besides you.
.
IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians? |
| 10-05-2022 09:52 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required? |
| RE: IBM is an ugly liar.10-05-2022 19:20 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBM is an ugly liar.
As Squeal Over's sock puppet, it is my job to do the ad hominem attacks.
This ad hominem about IBM has no place in a valid debate, but neither does IBM.
Such righteous indignation that everyone didn't understand that "amphibian" was ALWAYS just based on the adjective that applies to military vehicles if they operate on both land and water.
Indeed, the moral character of a person was questionable if they didn't acknowledge that this was the ONLY way to interpret the word "amphibian",
But in a rare moment of honesty, IBM answered a simple question in which it there was clear understanding of what sane people think amphibians are.
There was no caveat that the answer only applied to that very narrow-minded definition of amphibian that every kid learns before they finish primary school.
This wasn't cognitive dissonance. This was just a lie.
IBM is an UGLY liar. The ad hominem attack includes a qualifying adjective in addition to the accurate description noun.
THAT truth, the ugly part, is self evident.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required? |
| 10-05-2022 20:34 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
squeal over's sock wrote:IBM is an ugly liar.
I'll take it that my position is clear and that you deny alligators are amphibious.
I think we're done on this. |
| RE: "I think we're done with this."10-05-2022 20:58 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IBM is an ugly liar.
I'll take it that my position is clear and that you deny alligators are amphibious.
I think we're done on this.
"I think we're done with this."
I think we're done with YOU, you fuggin' LIAR. |
| RE: yes, further clarification is required11-05-2022 18:56 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
The question was not what you believe the Wikipedia taxonomy LISTS them as.
This is being just being a liar who runs away from his words.
In this "debate", when you are not a tar baby, you are a greased pig.
A tar baby just sticks to you, and everything you try to do to get it off just gets it stuck to another part of you.
You are the tar baby that just keeps repeating the same absurd assertions and accusations not matter how often they are disproved.
You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say, no matter how clearly your own quotes contradict you.
And you know a whole lot more about word games than science.
So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
And Parrot Boy has already explained how tree frogs that never set foot in water and lay their eggs in watery mucus up in the trees are amphibious. Technically, their eggs are in "water".
But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post. |
| 11-05-2022 20:19 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
squeal over's sock wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
Nope. There is no contradiction. You aren't very good at formal logic.
squeal over's sock wrote:You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
... because they are completely amphibious ... and that's how the English language works.
squeal over's sock wrote:That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
Yes, in fact it is. People who communicate in English use the English language to communicate whatever they wish to communicate and are not required to adhere to anyone else's arbitrary bastardization of the English language.
Your English comprehension is poor and you don't understand how human communication works.
squeal over's sock wrote:You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
... and I was specifically speaking within your context of standardized animal taxonomy as a response to your post. Am I somehow mistaken?
However, when Into the Night referred to alligators as amphibians, he was speaking within the context of proper English usage based on alligators being completely amphibious. Your response to him was in error for applying the wrong context. This is not surprising since you aren't very smart, your English comprehension sucks and you are dishonest.
You were then notified that the context is English communication and the word "amphibious" was shoved in your face. But you insisted on clinging to the erroneous context because you aren't very smart, your English comprehension sucks and you are dishonest.
squeal over's sock wrote:That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
Nope. It was in response to your question as to how I believe alligators are identified in your context which is of a standardized taxonomy. Once again, I responded to your question which carried your context. Was I mistaken?
squeal over's sock wrote:You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say,
Incorrect. I clearly state my position and I stand by it.
Do you have any questions about my position or are you just frustrated that you can't catch me in a GOTCHA! that is somehow designed to catch me being mistaken about something?
If it will make you feel better, I will make some mistakes for you right here:
Black is white. Night is day. Thomas Jefferson authored the Communist Manifesto.
Ooops, did I write those things above? What was I thinking?
There. You caught me in some errors. Can you move beyond this now?
squeal over's sock wrote:So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
Your English comprehension must be buried in your septic tank if you don't understand my position by now.
Do you have any questions about my position that I may answer/clarify?
squeal over's sock wrote:You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
Nope. Your lack of English comprehension is a real problem for you, I see.
squeal over's sock wrote:But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
The word games are yours. You are the dishonest schytt who floats back and forth between contexts as convenient to disrupt a conversation over a mere word. You still haven't explained why recognizing the amphibious nature of alligators makes your melt like the wicked witch of the west. Even when I put photographic evidence before you showing that alligators are, in fact, amphibious, you remained singularly focused on derailing the previous discussion.
... and of course, you blame others for your nefarious activities.
squeal over's sock wrote:And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post.
Thank you kindly. I'm going to hold you to that.
Attached image:
 |
| 11-05-2022 20:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
There is no personal dictionary.
Im a BM wrote:
You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
Not what he said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
The question was not what you believe the Wikipedia taxonomy LISTS them as.
This is being just being a liar who runs away from his words.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
In this "debate", when you are not a tar baby, you are a greased pig.
A tar baby just sticks to you, and everything you try to do to get it off just gets it stuck to another part of you.
You are the tar baby that just keeps repeating the same absurd assertions and accusations not matter how often they are disproved.
You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say, no matter how clearly your own quotes contradict you.
And you know a whole lot more about word games than science.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
Not the definition he used. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
And Parrot Boy has already explained how tree frogs that never set foot in water and lay their eggs in watery mucus up in the trees are amphibious. Technically, their eggs are in "water".
Not what I said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and Swan.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post.
Lie. I know you too well. You cannot afford to be ignored. Your desperate need to sound important is your mental issue.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-05-2022 21:15 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5723) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
There is no personal dictionary.
Im a BM wrote:
You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
Not what he said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
The question was not what you believe the Wikipedia taxonomy LISTS them as.
This is being just being a liar who runs away from his words.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
In this "debate", when you are not a tar baby, you are a greased pig.
A tar baby just sticks to you, and everything you try to do to get it off just gets it stuck to another part of you.
You are the tar baby that just keeps repeating the same absurd assertions and accusations not matter how often they are disproved.
You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say, no matter how clearly your own quotes contradict you.
And you know a whole lot more about word games than science.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
Not the definition he used. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
And Parrot Boy has already explained how tree frogs that never set foot in water and lay their eggs in watery mucus up in the trees are amphibious. Technically, their eggs are in "water".
Not what I said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and Swan.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post.
Lie. I know you too well. You cannot afford to be ignored. Your desperate need to sound important is your mental issue.
Alligators are reptiles that spend much of their time in the water as polar bears are mammals that spend much of their time in and on the water, neither are amphibians |
|
| 11-05-2022 23:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
There is no personal dictionary.
Im a BM wrote:
You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
Not what he said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
The question was not what you believe the Wikipedia taxonomy LISTS them as.
This is being just being a liar who runs away from his words.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
In this "debate", when you are not a tar baby, you are a greased pig.
A tar baby just sticks to you, and everything you try to do to get it off just gets it stuck to another part of you.
You are the tar baby that just keeps repeating the same absurd assertions and accusations not matter how often they are disproved.
You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say, no matter how clearly your own quotes contradict you.
And you know a whole lot more about word games than science.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
Not the definition he used. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
And Parrot Boy has already explained how tree frogs that never set foot in water and lay their eggs in watery mucus up in the trees are amphibious. Technically, their eggs are in "water".
Not what I said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and Swan.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post.
Lie. I know you too well. You cannot afford to be ignored. Your desperate need to sound important is your mental issue.
Alligators are reptiles that spend much of their time in the water as polar bears are mammals that spend much of their time in and on the water, neither are amphibians Both are amphibians.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 12-05-2022 20:26 |
Swan★★★★★
(5723) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over's sock wrote:IdaBM responded "I do not" to the question:
Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?
Correct. I do not believe the Wikipedia taxonomy lists alligators as "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge the absence of any reptiles in many enumerations of amphibians, and I accept this for reasons of practicality.
I fully acknowledge the amphibious nature of alligators, otters and ducks, among others. Thus I fully accept alligators being called "amphibians."
I fully acknowledge that you deny the amphibious nature of alligators. This does not surprise me as you are willing to deny physics and math.
Is my position clear, or is further clarification required?
Your position contradicts your other position.
You "fully accept alligators being called 'amphibians'"
That's mighty decent of you, but the question isn't what do people choose to call them according to their personal dictionary.
There is no personal dictionary.
Im a BM wrote:
You said you do NOT "believe that alligators are amphibians."
Not what he said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
That was to the question what ARE they, not what do you "accept alligators being called".
The question was not what you believe the Wikipedia taxonomy LISTS them as.
This is being just being a liar who runs away from his words.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
In this "debate", when you are not a tar baby, you are a greased pig.
A tar baby just sticks to you, and everything you try to do to get it off just gets it stuck to another part of you.
You are the tar baby that just keeps repeating the same absurd assertions and accusations not matter how often they are disproved.
You are the greased pig that can't be pinned down for anything you say, no matter how clearly your own quotes contradict you.
And you know a whole lot more about word games than science.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
So, you assert that alligators are NOT amphibians when it should somehow be understood that you're just saying you don't buy into Wikipedia lies about what people call them.
You assert that alligators ARE amphibians when it should somehow be understood that this is based on the ONE TRUE definition of the word - anything live or dead that can be in water sometimes or on land sometimes.
Not the definition he used. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
And Parrot Boy has already explained how tree frogs that never set foot in water and lay their eggs in watery mucus up in the trees are amphibious. Technically, their eggs are in "water".
Not what I said. Word stuffing.
Im a BM wrote:
But I only see TWO members here who buy into your stupid word games, or even pretend to buy into them.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and Swan.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the last time that either sealover or poop man will respond to any bullshit that you post.
Lie. I know you too well. You cannot afford to be ignored. Your desperate need to sound important is your mental issue.
Alligators are reptiles that spend much of their time in the water as polar bears are mammals that spend much of their time in and on the water, neither are amphibians Both are amphibians.
Only in your special world |
| 12-05-2022 20:49 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
Swan wrote:Into the Night wrote: Both are amphibians. Only in your special world
Which would be this world.
So we'll add polar bears to the list of animals whose amphibious nature you deny.
Let's just chalk your misunderstanding up to you just not understanding what "amphibious" means or how the English language works ... and we can just leave it at that.
. |
| 12-05-2022 21:28 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
I see a lot of polar ice melting in those pictures... poor polar bears... soon there will be no more ice left for them.
All thanks to stupid backwoods hillbilly conservative ****s who jerk off to their guns and their gas guzzling trucks... |
| 13-05-2022 03:08 |
Swan★★★★★
(5723) |
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Edited on 13-05-2022 03:25 |
| 13-05-2022 03:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-05-2022 04:05 |
Swan★★★★★
(5723) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA |
| 13-05-2022 05:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA
Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 13-05-2022 05:07 |
| 13-05-2022 18:29 |
Swan★★★★★
(5723) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA
Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA |
| 13-05-2022 19:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.
Do they pay you much to do this for a living?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA
Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.
You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA
Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/__opt__aboutcom__coeus__resources__content_migration__mnn__images__2020__02__polar-bear-swimming-a4eae44f240b47928dbdfadc70eec0a1.jpg)
