Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?
| 19-06-2026 15:57 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3712) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: In addition to calling yourself a "chemist", you also self identify as some kind of "computer engineer". PLEASE contact Branner and offer him some of your computer wisdom. Branner needs to know how to Messiah-proof his website. As a "computer engineer", you should be able to teach him how to do that. Go for it! Do something that is actually of VALUE for this website, Into the Night! |
| 02-07-2026 16:31 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3712) |
Im a BM wrote: Okay, since nobody is coming to ITN's defense... Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is? It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "chemical" is because you have written literally THOUSANDS of sentences that all say "(name of ion) is not a chemical". Apparently, these claims are central to whatever "argument" ITN thinks he is making. Apparently, the fact that "carbonate is not a chemical" (according to ITN's OPINION) is very important for some reason. It gets repeated over and over and over, as if it actually MEANS something. What the heck is Into the Night trying to say with "fluoride is not a chemical", for example? It will only make sense when Into the Night FINALLY reveals his SECRET definition for the term "chemical". It might become more plausible that Into the Night is some kind of "chemist" if he can prove that he knows what a "chemical" is. It will not because he cannot, because he does not. Because he is not. |
| 02-07-2026 19:27 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(24251) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Ingrate. Branner is also a computer engineer. 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 |
| 02-07-2026 19:29 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24251) |
Im a BM wrote: Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. I am not going to teach you chemistry. 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 |
| 02-07-2026 21:35 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3712) |
Im a BM wrote: Okay, since nobody is coming to ITN's defense... Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is? It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "chemical" is because you have written literally THOUSANDS of sentences that all say "(name of ion) is not a chemical". Apparently, these claims are central to whatever "argument" ITN thinks he is making. Apparently, the fact that "carbonate is not a chemical" (according to ITN's OPINION) is very important for some reason. It gets repeated over and over and over, as if it actually MEANS something. What the heck is Into the Night trying to say with "fluoride is not a chemical", for example? It will only make sense when Into the Night FINALLY reveals his SECRET definition for the term "chemical". It might become more plausible that Into the Night is some kind of "chemist" if he can prove that he knows what a "chemical" is. It will not because he cannot, because he does not. Because he is not.[/quote] And he STILL doesn't know the definition of "chemical"! Or else he just keeps that definition SECRET. WHY do you claim that "CO3(2-) is not a chemical"? DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Under what definition of "chemical" do "carbonate" and "CO3(2-)" fail to qualify? Under the SECRET definition used by a FRAUD who pretends to be a "chemist". |
| 02-07-2026 21:52 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(15313) |
Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is? Robert, do you know what a category is? It is clear to me that you do NOT even know what a "category" is because you have referred to categories as "chemicals" literally hundreds of times. To make matters more absurd, you then claim to be a chemist, and then insist that water never evaporates and that lipids are hydrocarbons. Apparently, these claims are central to whatever "argument" you think you are making. Apparently, "carbonates" being a category is too complex of a concept for you to grasp. As usch, you keep repeating over and over and over that the category is a chemical, as if the two words are interchangeable. What the heck are you trying to say, Robert, by calling the fluorides category a "chemical", for example? It will only make sense when Into the Night FINALLY reveals his SECRET definition for the term "chemical". It might become more plausible that you have read something having to do with chemistry if you can prove that you know what a "category" is. It will not because you cannot. Because you are not. WHY do you claim that the CO3(2-) category is not a category? DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Under what definition of "category" does "carbonates" fail to qualify? Under the SECRET definition used by a FRAUD who pretends to be a "chemist". |
| 02-07-2026 21:57 | |
| sealover★★★★★ (2123) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, do you know what a "chemical" is? |
| 03-07-2026 22:47 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3712) |
Ions are Chemicals that Have a First Name. Let us assume that the average reader is educated enough to have a basic concept of what a "chemical" is. Ions, such as the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) are CHEMICALS that are often referred to on a first name basis in water chemistry. A reference to dissolved "carbonate" in sea water is understood to mean CO3(2-), the carbonate ion. In a laboratory, a solution of pure sodium carbonate can be made by adding sodium carbonate, Na2CO3, to pure water, H2O. In that solution, it can be assumed that virtually every carbonate ion, CO3(2-) has two sodium ions, Na+, attached to it in an outer sphere complex. "Outer sphere" means that no electron orbitals overlap between any atoms in the carbonate ion and electron orbitals of its two closely associated sodium atoms. This is also called an "ionic bond". In water chemistry, we don't bother giving the full name every time we make reference to a dissolved ion in solution. We write our reports with tables having columns labeled simply "carbonate" or "CO3(2-)", milligrams per liter. Water chemist do that with ALL the ions they communicate about. Anyone who passed high chemistry can understand that the "fluoride" added to water supplies refers to the fluoride ION, F-. There is rarely need to specify which CATION is associated with the ANION they are referring to. Same for sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, bicarbonate.. All of them are CHEMICALS being referred to by ion first name. Someone who LIES about being a "chemist" may not have ever learned this. Such a person who is incredibly ignorant and stubborn may simply insist "fluoride is not a chemical", as if that reveals something significant. And then "RQAA" when asked, "Well, in that case, what the pHuck do you think a 'chemical' IS?" Im a BM wrote: |
Join the debate Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| ITN calls himself The Parrot Killer. Ha! | 10 | 30-04-2026 23:00 |
| Subscribtion challange, ITN, Swanny boy , James, IbdaMann and others, help me. | 24 | 22-11-2025 22:26 |
| itn | 32 | 29-05-2024 19:34 |
| itn | 4 | 17-08-2023 20:24 |
| Something To Make itn feel Good | 22 | 26-07-2018 20:15 |