IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, gfm7174, "interstitium" definition

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

It is rather puzzling how ITN will always respond to your posts, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I'm not sure who is trolling who.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

It is rather puzzling how ITN will always respond to your posts, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I'm not sure who is trolling who.

Enjoy my manic grandiosity. Maybe in about a week. I think I have something of value to share to advance medical science.

I will alert you as it comes along, because I intend to use some of the symptoms you described (without naming you) as case studies to understand how the interstitium functions. Boils on the butt, for example. In fact, my promise to you is that the first five examples will be exactly that - five specific symptoms you described. I'd hate to stop at three or four, because five would then allow me to show the interconnectedness of the fluid-filled highway, with all the different symptoms in a single patient originating from a single, common interstitium dysfunction.

New viewers should check out the "Immortality Discovered" thread, by Spongy Iris, for more background on this discussion. A great deal about the interstitium is already discussed there.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

It is rather puzzling how ITN will always respond to your posts, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I'm not sure who is trolling who.

Enjoy my manic grandiosity. Maybe in about a week. I think I have something of value to share to advance medical science.

I will alert you as it comes along, because I intend to use some of the symptoms you described (without naming you) as case studies to understand how the interstitium functions. Boils on the butt, for example. In fact, my promise to you is that the first five examples will be exactly that - five specific symptoms you described. I'd hate to stop at three or four, because five would then allow me to show the interconnectedness of the fluid-filled highway, with all the different symptoms in a single patient originating from a single, common interstitium dysfunction.

New viewers should check out the "Immortality Discovered" thread, by Spongy Iris, for more background on this discussion. A great deal about the interstitium is already discussed there.

I think my examples are more like interstitium dysfunction in the process of being rectified.

A giant boil on back for example, unchanged for about 15 years, then finally bursting, 28 months after making a lifestyle choice change, then many pimples making their way down to butt, where they don't last more than about a week after erupting.

Im a BM wrote:
Give me a chance!

Im a BM wrote:
"Dysfunction" was the wrong word. Indeed, some of the most painful symptoms are when it functions properly. Some of the symptoms are unmasked by finally rehydrating dry "compartments". Doctors often encourage patients NOT to go through with it. Pain is unacceptable and must be avoided. Immune response, "allergic" reactions, inflamation, etc. are unacceptable and must be avoided.

sealover wrote:Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

Im a BM wrote: Maybe in about a week. I think I have something of value to share to advance medical science.

Im a BM wrote: [Into the Night] seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ,...

Im a BM wrote: SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: [Into the Night] seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ,...

Into the Night is correct. If you had bothered to check the definition of "organ", you'd find that interstitium doesn't meet it.

Im a BM wrote: SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body.

Scientists who are aware that interstitium doesn't meet the definition of "organ" recognize that interstitium is not an organ. Consequently, they don't believe that interstitium is somehow the largest organ.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Im a BM wrote: So, basically it's saltwater. NO connective tissue. NO lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. NO network of interconnected fluid-filled compartments.

Im a BM wrote:In other words, you guys BOTH agree that alligators ARE amphibians.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: So, basically it's saltwater. NO connective tissue. NO lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. NO network of interconnected fluid-filled compartments.

Are there any other words you'd like to put in my mouth?

Have you always sucked at logic or is this a recent thing?

Im a BM wrote:In other words, you guys BOTH agree that alligators ARE amphibians.

Too funny! Robert denies that alligators are amphibious! ... and he calls himself a thientitht! It's a good thing for amphibious animals that water never evaporates, isn't that right, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: So, basically it's saltwater. NO connective tissue. NO lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. NO network of interconnected fluid-filled compartments.

Are there any other words you'd like to put in my mouth?

Have you always sucked at logic or is this a recent thing?

Im a BM wrote:In other words, you guys BOTH agree that alligators ARE amphibians.

Too funny! Robert denies that alligators are amphibious! ... and he calls himself a thientitht! It's a good thing for amphibious animals that water never evaporates, isn't that right, Robert?

I put no words in your mouth. I merely recapped the quotes by Into the Night about the interstitium, to which YOU commented, "He is correct.". If the ONLY thing he was correct about was "It is not an organ"... Perhaps you thought it was clear that you did NOT agree with everything ELSE he said to define it.

It was NOT clear if by saying "He is correct" you meant only one of his six major claims about the nature of the interstitium was correct.

It also functions as an "organ", far better than Pluto ever functioned as a "planet".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: So, basically it's saltwater. NO connective tissue. NO lattice of collagen and elastin fibers. NO network of interconnected fluid-filled compartments.

Are there any other words you'd like to put in my mouth?

Have you always sucked at logic or is this a recent thing?

Im a BM wrote:In other words, you guys BOTH agree that alligators ARE amphibians.

Too funny! Robert denies that alligators are amphibious! ... and he calls himself a thientitht! It's a good thing for amphibious animals that water never evaporates, isn't that right, Robert?

I put no words in your mouth. I merely recapped the quotes by Into the Night about the interstitium, to which YOU commented, "He is correct.". If the ONLY thing he was correct about was "It is not an organ"... Perhaps you thought it was clear that you did NOT agree with everything ELSE he said to define it.

It was NOT clear if by saying "He is correct" you meant only one of his six major claims about the nature of the interstitium was correct.

It also functions as an "organ", far better than Pluto ever functioned as a "planet".

Pluto is a planet. The interstitia is not an organ.

Im a BM wrote:
Only the INTERSTITIUM is claimed to be an "organ". "Interstitia" is ambiguous.

Interstitium... interstitia... interstitial.... interstitial FLUID.

Interstitium = Interstitial Fluid? No. Interstial FLUID is the "basically saltwater" that occupies the fluid-filled "compartments" of the intersititium.

It is correct that the interstial FLUID has "No tissue... no fibers.. no collagen... no elastin.. no lattice of flexible strands in a network of fluid filled compartments.

Im a BM wrote:
Go and learn some science, Into the Night!

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS! But first go learn what "interstitium" even IS.

It's too late for you to wish that big word away by declaring it to be meaningless. You already said it means something. "Basically it's saltwater".

You can say "RQAA" or "YARP" or whatever, but this is only in the past few days. You can't pretend that at some time in the past you actually DEFINED the term correctly somewhere. Of course, you can DENY YOUR OWN POSTS again.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

It is rather puzzling how ITN will always respond to your posts, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I'm not sure who is trolling who.

Im a BM wrote: I put no words in your mouth.

Im a BM wrote: I merely recapped the quotes by Into the Night about the interstitium, to which YOU commented, "He is correct.".

Im a BM wrote:It also functions as an "organ", far better than Pluto ever functioned as a "planet".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I put no words in your mouth.

You most certainly did.

Im a BM wrote: I merely recapped the quotes by Into the Night about the interstitium, to which YOU commented, "He is correct.".

Inappropriate. You did not recap the quotes about which I was commenting.

You should have clarified what I was saying was correct if you had any questions.

My post clearly focused on Into the Night's claim that interstitium is not an organ. You disagree, because you don't know anything about what you speak. Your only option is to misrepresent my position, and then attack the misrepresentation.

Conclusion: Into the Night is correct and you are incorrect; intertitium is not an organ.

Im a BM wrote:It also functions as an "organ", far better than Pluto ever functioned as a "planet".

Incorrect. Interstitium is not an organ precisely because it doesn't function as one, whereas Pluto functions beautifully as the planet that it is.

Im a BM wrote: Whatever it is, it operates as a single, integrated, interconnected thing from head to toe.

Im a BM wrote: If your only beef with the interstitium is that you don't think that it qualifies for membership in the "organ" club, you will have no incentive to troll every post.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Whatever it is, it operates as a single, integrated, interconnected thing from head to toe.

Only because you are grouping many, many things together under an umbrella name and referring to them all in aggregate as "it". It's like pointing to the water in a swimming pool, with floaties and toys, and claiming that "it" functions as a single, integrated, connected thing. Stupid.

Im a BM wrote: If your only beef with the interstitium is that you don't think that it qualifies for membership in the "organ" club, you will have no incentive to troll every post.

If you have no need to accuse people of somehow having a beef with interstitium fluids, you won't need to troll every post in every thread. You won't have to have any "Global Warming is Real, Real, REAL!" tantrums, unless you are forgetting that mangroves aren't going to save the planet.

Sounds like you are not committed to insisting that water evaporates.

sealover wrote:
Enjoy my manic grandiosity. Maybe in about a week. I think I have something of value to share to advance medical science.

sealover wrote:
I will alert you as it comes along, because I intend to use some of the symptoms you described (without naming you) as case studies to understand how the interstitium functions. Boils on the butt, for example. In fact, my promise to you is that the first five examples will be exactly that - five specific symptoms you described. I'd hate to stop at three or four, because five would then allow me to show the interconnectedness of the fluid-filled highway, with all the different symptoms in a single patient originating from a single, common interstitium dysfunction.

sealover wrote:

New viewers should check out the "Immortality Discovered" thread, by Spongy Iris, for more background on this discussion. A great deal about the interstitium is already discussed there.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I put no words in your mouth.

You most certainly did.

Im a BM wrote: I merely recapped the quotes by Into the Night about the interstitium, to which YOU commented, "He is correct.".

Inappropriate. You did not recap the quotes about which I was commenting.

You should have clarified what I was saying was correct if you had any questions.

My post clearly focused on Into the Night's claim that interstitium is not an organ. You disagree, because you don't know anything about what you speak. Your only option is to misrepresent my position, and then attack the misrepresentation.

Conclusion: Into the Night is correct and you are incorrect; intertitium is not an organ.

Im a BM wrote:It also functions as an "organ", far better than Pluto ever functioned as a "planet".

Incorrect. Interstitium is not an organ precisely because it doesn't function as one, whereas Pluto functions beautifully as the planet that it is.

Excellent!

I have no interest in arguing whether or not it is an "organ". At least not until completing the description of what it is comprised of and where it is located.

A complete review of the physical layout has no agenda to advocate for or against "organ" status declaration. There are a whole lot of collagen and elastin fibers in a highly organized, body-wide network, doing SOMETHING... Just a blueprint of the plumbing offers clues as to WHY natural selection would favor such a thing in evolution. Draw your own conclusions if you want to call it an "organ". Whatever it is, it operates as a single, integrated, interconnected thing from head to toe.

If your only beef with the interstitium is that you don't think that it qualifies for membership in the "organ" club, you will have no incentive to troll every post.

You won't have to have any "No, it's NOT!" tantrums, unless you are aware of information that contradicts the medical science research literature regarding the layout of the hardware.

Sounds like you are not committed to insisting that the interstitium is NOT all those things that ITN swears it cannot be.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Whatever it is, it operates as a single, integrated, interconnected thing from head to toe.

Only because you are grouping many, many things together under an umbrella name and referring to them all in aggregate as "it". It's like pointing to the water in a swimming pool, with floaties and toys, and claiming that "it" functions as a single, integrated, connected thing. Stupid.

Im a BM wrote: If your only beef with the interstitium is that you don't think that it qualifies for membership in the "organ" club, you will have no incentive to troll every post.

If you have no need to accuse people of somehow having a beef with interstitium fluids, you won't need to troll every post in every thread. You won't have to have any "Global Warming is Real, Real, REAL!" tantrums, unless you are forgetting that mangroves aren't going to save the planet.

Sounds like you are not committed to insisting that water evaporates.

Apparently, you believe that you understand the interstitium well enough, to criticize how I have characterized it.

What is YOUR operating definition for "interstitium" that YOU refer to. Does it include only the water in the swimming pool?

DEFINE YOUR TERMS! Or GTFO

You have NOT given anything close to an "unambiguous definition", or even the vaguest one. What do YOU think Into the Night was referring to, if your personal definition for "interstitium" is different than his. His is ONLY the water in the pool, not even the concrete walls that contain it, and certainly not the plumbing that moves water into or out of the pool.

You have stressed MANY times how ESSENTIAL it is in science for one to DEFINE THEIR TERMS. Surely you've noticed ITN refusing to define any chemistry.

This thread is about the interstitium and the term is defined from the first post.

IBdaMann, what you have written suggests to me that you really have NO IDEA what the "interstitium" is.

I hope you will realize that you have nothing of value to offer in discussion of a topic you know nothing about.

If you at least COPY a definition of "interstitium", we'll BOTH know what you are trying to say. Because you WILL insist on saying SOMETHING.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

Im a BM wrote:
I guess GasGuzzler and gfm7174 weren't interested.

IBdaMann posted here, but he did not answer the question. He's been here more than ten years, long enough to see all 24,000 of ITN's posts.

IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Im a BM wrote:
That's a real "chemist" for ya!

Im a BM wrote:
But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

Im a BM wrote:
The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I guess GasGuzzler and gfm7174 weren't interested.

IBdaMann posted here, but he did not answer the question. He's been here more than ten years, long enough to see all 24,000 of ITN's posts.

IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Redefinition fallacy

Im a BM wrote:
That's a real "chemist" for ya!

True Scotsman fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

RQAA

You deny chemistry.
You deny theories of science. You have already denied Henry's law, Black's law, and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
"Define your terms", they said, OVER and OVER.

It didn't matter how many different ways I explained what I, and virtually the whole scientific community, meant by the term "climate change".

Im a BM wrote:
But CHEMISTRY has far less ambiguous concepts to convey in terminology.

Can't get Into the Night EVER to define his chemistry terms. EVER!

One of many reasons it is OBVIOUS that he is not a chemist.

"RQAA" tee hee hee

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

Im a BM wrote:
NOW Google AI gets it! Google says:
...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NOW Google AI gets it! Google says:
...

You are not Google.
Don't try to substitute GoogleAI for your brain.

Irrelevance fallacy. Void authority fallacy.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Im a BM wrote: But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

Im a BM wrote: The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Im a BM wrote:Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

Im a BM wrote: For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

Just assume that he considers it a ratio. All that matters is whether his own internal logic is consistent. Nobody is somehow required to use anybody else's terminology or thought process.

Instead of flailing for divergence from your terminology/wording, explain what error you believe resides in his argument.

Just tell me, what science error is he making?

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Irrelevant. Meaningless. What error in science is he making?

Im a BM wrote: But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

I don't remember him making any logical errors based on his definitions. This is why it is crucial for everyone to define his terms, i.e. in order to discern errors.

Im a BM wrote: The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Great. Go with that. How does that create an error?

Im a BM wrote:Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

It's not that I "agree"; it happens to be the definition I use (and thanks again for catching my previous ln() error), but I neither own science nor do I oversee the nonexistent science consensus. When schmucks tried to declassify Pluto as a planet, I dismissed their assertion outright.

Im a BM wrote: For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

Are you ready for another splash of cold water? You don't know what a fact is.

Focus on any argument Into the Night is making and show that it contains an error, not just a terminology disagreement.

Im a BM wrote:
The mental gymnastics required for this level of cognitive dissonance are amazing!

Everyone must define their terms, but everyone gets to have their own personal definition.
...removed irrelevant material...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

Just assume that he considers it a ratio. All that matters is whether his own internal logic is consistent. Nobody is somehow required to use anybody else's terminology or thought process.

Instead of flailing for divergence from your terminology/wording, explain what error you believe resides in his argument.

Just tell me, what science error is he making?

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Irrelevant. Meaningless. What error in science is he making?

Im a BM wrote: But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

I don't remember him making any logical errors based on his definitions. This is why it is crucial for everyone to define his terms, i.e. in order to discern errors.

Im a BM wrote: The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Great. Go with that. How does that create an error?

Im a BM wrote:Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

It's not that I "agree"; it happens to be the definition I use (and thanks again for catching my previous ln() error), but I neither own science nor do I oversee the nonexistent science consensus. When schmucks tried to declassify Pluto as a planet, I dismissed their assertion outright.

Im a BM wrote: For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

Are you ready for another splash of cold water? You don't know what a fact is.

Focus on any argument Into the Night is making and show that it contains an error, not just a terminology disagreement.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, Did YOU ever see the definition for pH when ITN posted it sometime in the past. I can't even get him to tell me what YEAR it would have been.

Just assume that he considers it a ratio. All that matters is whether his own internal logic is consistent. Nobody is somehow required to use anybody else's terminology or thought process.

Instead of flailing for divergence from your terminology/wording, explain what error you believe resides in his argument.

Just tell me, what science error is he making?

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, pH = "RQAA"

Irrelevant. Meaningless. What error in science is he making?

Im a BM wrote: But seriously, IBdaMann, did ITN ever define pH that you can remember?

I don't remember him making any logical errors based on his definitions. This is why it is crucial for everyone to define his terms, i.e. in order to discern errors.

Im a BM wrote: The closest I can find is where he says it's "a ratio", and that's all.

Great. Go with that. How does that create an error?

Im a BM wrote:Reality check, IBdaMann, you DO agree that pH = -log(H+), right?

It's not that I "agree"; it happens to be the definition I use (and thanks again for catching my previous ln() error), but I neither own science nor do I oversee the nonexistent science consensus. When schmucks tried to declassify Pluto as a planet, I dismissed their assertion outright.

Im a BM wrote: For all the hundred times he answers with "RQAA", far fewer keystrokes would prove if he knows one of the most basic facts in chemistry.

Are you ready for another splash of cold water? You don't know what a fact is.

Focus on any argument Into the Night is making and show that it contains an error, not just a terminology disagreement.

Im a BM wrote:
And THAT'S how you "win" a "debate" about "science".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
And THAT'S how you "win" a "debate" about "science".

You deny science.

You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You think 'science' is a magick paper.
You think 'science' is a magazine.
You think 'science' is a journal.
You think 'science' is a consensus or voting bloc.
You think 'science' is buzzword junk.
You think 'science' is a prize.
You think 'science' is spam.
You think 'science' is a title.
You think 'science' is a sanctification.
You think 'science' is a class or course.
You think 'science' is bacteria.
You think 'science' is climate.

Science is none of these things.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You have also not yet described what is 'changing' in climate.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
And THAT'S how you "win" a "debate" about "science".

You deny science.

You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You think 'science' is a magick paper.
You think 'science' is a magazine.
You think 'science' is a journal.
You think 'science' is a consensus or voting bloc.
You think 'science' is buzzword junk.
You think 'science' is a prize.
You think 'science' is spam.
You think 'science' is a title.
You think 'science' is a sanctification.
You think 'science' is a class or course.
You think 'science' is bacteria.
You think 'science' is climate.

Science is none of these things.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You have also not yet described what is 'changing' in climate.

"You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is...You think 'science' is.." and I'm not going to copy all ELEVEN times this meaningless phrase gets repeated.

It reinforces my conviction that Into the Night does not even know what 'science' IS. Literally!