| Modern Construction Materials Transforming Commercial And Industrial Buildings05-03-2026 16:47 |
markdavid☆☆☆☆☆
(1) |
Modern construction materials are revolutionizing the way commercial and industrial buildings are designed and built. Lightweight steel, high-performance concrete, and advanced composites offer superior strength while reducing construction time and overall costs.
These materials are not only durable but also environmentally friendly, helping companies meet sustainability goals. Glass innovations, such as energy-efficient and smart glass, improve natural lighting and reduce energy consumption.
In industrial settings, specialized materials resistant to heat, chemicals, or heavy wear ensure longer-lasting structures and safer work environments.
The adoption of prefabricated panels and modular components allows faster assembly on-site, minimizing delays and labor expenses.
Using modern construction materials also enhances architectural flexibility, allowing designers to create innovative and functional spaces that were difficult to achieve with traditional materials.
As technology evolves, embracing these materials is becoming essential for businesses aiming for efficiency, durability, and sustainability in their commercial and industrial projects. |
| 07-03-2026 07:35 |
Spongy Iris ★★★★★
(3536) |
Seems like modern construction materials weren't planned to last.
I came across this video recently showing how Rammed Earth outperforms concrete by most measures.
https://youtu.be/YCZt28nszLs?si=V-FPItqOrg7doqGh
Yet another indication the modern world is a House of Cards.
%20(1).png)
https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html |
| 28-03-2026 19:10 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24227) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like modern construction materials weren't planned to last.
I came across this video recently showing how Rammed Earth outperforms concrete by most measures.
https://youtu.be/YCZt28nszLs?si=V-FPItqOrg7doqGh
Yet another indication the modern world is a House of Cards.
Your video is wrong in some very important aspects. Notably on how it denigrates the various building codes as some kind of 'conspiracy'.
Building codes DO allow for adobe construction (rammed earth and straw/earth). Indeed, they are detailed on the requirements for using it there. It exists primarily in the IRC, but also is mentioned in the IBC.
It doesn't work in non-desert areas very well. It is subject to water erosion problems, icing issues, and STILL requires heavy wood beams. Earth has great compressive strength (when correctly compacted and containing the right aggregates. Indeed, the foundation of every building stands on that Earth. It does NOT have great tensile or shearing strength. You must use other materials for those kinds of installations.
The video also cherry picked adobe buildings as 'unique' in surviving the San Francisco earthquake. That is far from the truth. Most single story and two story buildings survived that quake. There were even quite a few three story buildings that survived that quake.
Concrete buildings are reinforced. So are support columns for roadways, railroad bridges, etc. Modern buildings are much more earthquake proof then ever, particularly in earthquake prone areas. That is now part of the building codes. Much of this came out of quakes like this.
Light frame construction (typical of residential construction) IS built like a house of cards. Those 'cards' are plywood or OSB sheets, which give the building much of it's strength. The framing they attach to is the other part of that structure. Properly constructed, these buildings last a very long time.
Too many builders these days use PAPER sheets as the sheer wall. This is BAD construction. It will come apart even before the new house sells. These include million dollar homes where the plumbing doesn't work properly, the electrical system is a fire hazard, the sheer walls are dissolving, the beams aren't resting on a column or valid path to the ground, and even the drywall is installed so haphazardly that it looks like some child did it with all the quality of a treehouse. Brick mortar so defective, that bricks are falling off the facing, even over entrance areas (a real hazard!). Drainage systems non-effective or not sloped correctly. Not a square corner in the place. Door trim that doesn't line up or has gaps. Doors that don't stay open or closed or stick. Window frames that have rot conditions (yes, you can see it under new paint).
And they pay off inspectors to pass this junk.
Million dollar homes. Also, beware of the flippers. They often RUIN a house structure while 'improving' the home.
Before you buy ANY home, get it inspected by an independent inspector that YOU hire. Look for cracks in the foundation, beams that aren't touching their support columns (or don't have one!). The sheer wall material condition (check for rot as well!). Weather membrane and insulation systems that have failed and are causing rot. Check the condition of the brick mortar to see if it's cracking or flaking.
Modern materials each have their uses and cost. Compacted earth/straw (adobe) only works in certain areas (typically desert areas where it doesn't rain a lot). Cement is expensive.
ANY building is a compromise between cost of materials, the purpose of the building, access, and the cost of using the materials, and the surrounding environment (earthquake zone, flooding zone, hurricane prone areas, sandy soils, swampy soils, nearby rivers and lakes, elevation and grade, nearby vegetation, and of course, availability of water, sewage disposal, drainage, electricity, and communications systems, ventilation requirements, and fenestration.
For example, a residence has very different requirements than a theater packed with an audience does, just in ventilation system requirements.
The IRC and IBC and all the other various codes are the MINIMUM requirements for construction. They are there for your safety. The government inspectors are SUPPOSED to enforce them, but too often they do not. THIS is how substandard houses and other buildings come to be.
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 |
| 29-03-2026 19:30 |
Spongy Iris★★★★★
(3536) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like modern construction materials weren't planned to last.
I came across this video recently showing how Rammed Earth outperforms concrete by most measures.
https://youtu.be/YCZt28nszLs?si=V-FPItqOrg7doqGh
Yet another indication the modern world is a House of Cards.
Your video is wrong in some very important aspects. Notably on how it denigrates the various building codes as some kind of 'conspiracy'.
Building codes DO allow for adobe construction (rammed earth and straw/earth). Indeed, they are detailed on the requirements for using it there. It exists primarily in the IRC, but also is mentioned in the IBC.
It doesn't work in non-desert areas very well. It is subject to water erosion problems, icing issues, and STILL requires heavy wood beams. Earth has great compressive strength (when correctly compacted and containing the right aggregates. Indeed, the foundation of every building stands on that Earth. It does NOT have great tensile or shearing strength. You must use other materials for those kinds of installations.
The video also cherry picked adobe buildings as 'unique' in surviving the San Francisco earthquake. That is far from the truth. Most single story and two story buildings survived that quake. There were even quite a few three story buildings that survived that quake.
Concrete buildings are reinforced. So are support columns for roadways, railroad bridges, etc. Modern buildings are much more earthquake proof then ever, particularly in earthquake prone areas. That is now part of the building codes. Much of this came out of quakes like this.
Light frame construction (typical of residential construction) IS built like a house of cards. Those 'cards' are plywood or OSB sheets, which give the building much of it's strength. The framing they attach to is the other part of that structure. Properly constructed, these buildings last a very long time.
Too many builders these days use PAPER sheets as the sheer wall. This is BAD construction. It will come apart even before the new house sells. These include million dollar homes where the plumbing doesn't work properly, the electrical system is a fire hazard, the sheer walls are dissolving, the beams aren't resting on a column or valid path to the ground, and even the drywall is installed so haphazardly that it looks like some child did it with all the quality of a treehouse. Brick mortar so defective, that bricks are falling off the facing, even over entrance areas (a real hazard!). Drainage systems non-effective or not sloped correctly. Not a square corner in the place. Door trim that doesn't line up or has gaps. Doors that don't stay open or closed or stick. Window frames that have rot conditions (yes, you can see it under new paint).
And they pay off inspectors to pass this junk.
Million dollar homes. Also, beware of the flippers. They often RUIN a house structure while 'improving' the home.
Before you buy ANY home, get it inspected by an independent inspector that YOU hire. Look for cracks in the foundation, beams that aren't touching their support columns (or don't have one!). The sheer wall material condition (check for rot as well!). Weather membrane and insulation systems that have failed and are causing rot. Check the condition of the brick mortar to see if it's cracking or flaking.
Modern materials each have their uses and cost. Compacted earth/straw (adobe) only works in certain areas (typically desert areas where it doesn't rain a lot). Cement is expensive.
ANY building is a compromise between cost of materials, the purpose of the building, access, and the cost of using the materials, and the surrounding environment (earthquake zone, flooding zone, hurricane prone areas, sandy soils, swampy soils, nearby rivers and lakes, elevation and grade, nearby vegetation, and of course, availability of water, sewage disposal, drainage, electricity, and communications systems, ventilation requirements, and fenestration.
For example, a residence has very different requirements than a theater packed with an audience does, just in ventilation system requirements.
The IRC and IBC and all the other various codes are the MINIMUM requirements for construction. They are there for your safety. The government inspectors are SUPPOSED to enforce them, but too often they do not. THIS is how substandard houses and other buildings come to be.
Yea I guess YOU are right, here.
Around my neck of the woods, in the SF East Bay, where rainfall is pretty light, I would love to see a Rammed Earth Renaissance.
https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html |
| 30-03-2026 02:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like modern construction materials weren't planned to last.
I came across this video recently showing how Rammed Earth outperforms concrete by most measures.
https://youtu.be/YCZt28nszLs?si=V-FPItqOrg7doqGh
Yet another indication the modern world is a House of Cards.
Your video is wrong in some very important aspects. Notably on how it denigrates the various building codes as some kind of 'conspiracy'.
Building codes DO allow for adobe construction (rammed earth and straw/earth). Indeed, they are detailed on the requirements for using it there. It exists primarily in the IRC, but also is mentioned in the IBC.
It doesn't work in non-desert areas very well. It is subject to water erosion problems, icing issues, and STILL requires heavy wood beams. Earth has great compressive strength (when correctly compacted and containing the right aggregates. Indeed, the foundation of every building stands on that Earth. It does NOT have great tensile or shearing strength. You must use other materials for those kinds of installations.
The video also cherry picked adobe buildings as 'unique' in surviving the San Francisco earthquake. That is far from the truth. Most single story and two story buildings survived that quake. There were even quite a few three story buildings that survived that quake.
Concrete buildings are reinforced. So are support columns for roadways, railroad bridges, etc. Modern buildings are much more earthquake proof then ever, particularly in earthquake prone areas. That is now part of the building codes. Much of this came out of quakes like this.
Light frame construction (typical of residential construction) IS built like a house of cards. Those 'cards' are plywood or OSB sheets, which give the building much of it's strength. The framing they attach to is the other part of that structure. Properly constructed, these buildings last a very long time.
Too many builders these days use PAPER sheets as the sheer wall. This is BAD construction. It will come apart even before the new house sells. These include million dollar homes where the plumbing doesn't work properly, the electrical system is a fire hazard, the sheer walls are dissolving, the beams aren't resting on a column or valid path to the ground, and even the drywall is installed so haphazardly that it looks like some child did it with all the quality of a treehouse. Brick mortar so defective, that bricks are falling off the facing, even over entrance areas (a real hazard!). Drainage systems non-effective or not sloped correctly. Not a square corner in the place. Door trim that doesn't line up or has gaps. Doors that don't stay open or closed or stick. Window frames that have rot conditions (yes, you can see it under new paint).
And they pay off inspectors to pass this junk.
Million dollar homes. Also, beware of the flippers. They often RUIN a house structure while 'improving' the home.
Before you buy ANY home, get it inspected by an independent inspector that YOU hire. Look for cracks in the foundation, beams that aren't touching their support columns (or don't have one!). The sheer wall material condition (check for rot as well!). Weather membrane and insulation systems that have failed and are causing rot. Check the condition of the brick mortar to see if it's cracking or flaking.
Modern materials each have their uses and cost. Compacted earth/straw (adobe) only works in certain areas (typically desert areas where it doesn't rain a lot). Cement is expensive.
ANY building is a compromise between cost of materials, the purpose of the building, access, and the cost of using the materials, and the surrounding environment (earthquake zone, flooding zone, hurricane prone areas, sandy soils, swampy soils, nearby rivers and lakes, elevation and grade, nearby vegetation, and of course, availability of water, sewage disposal, drainage, electricity, and communications systems, ventilation requirements, and fenestration.
For example, a residence has very different requirements than a theater packed with an audience does, just in ventilation system requirements.
The IRC and IBC and all the other various codes are the MINIMUM requirements for construction. They are there for your safety. The government inspectors are SUPPOSED to enforce them, but too often they do not. THIS is how substandard houses and other buildings come to be.
Yea I guess YOU are right, here.
Around my neck of the woods, in the SF East Bay, where rainfall is pretty light, I would love to see a Rammed Earth Renaissance.
So long as it meets the building code, knock yourself out. Have fun!
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 |
| 07-06-2026 19:44 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like modern construction materials weren't planned to last.
I came across this video recently showing how Rammed Earth outperforms concrete by most measures.
https://youtu.be/YCZt28nszLs?si=V-FPItqOrg7doqGh
Yet another indication the modern world is a House of Cards.
Your video is wrong in some very important aspects. Notably on how it denigrates the various building codes as some kind of 'conspiracy'.
Building codes DO allow for adobe construction (rammed earth and straw/earth). Indeed, they are detailed on the requirements for using it there. It exists primarily in the IRC, but also is mentioned in the IBC.
It doesn't work in non-desert areas very well. It is subject to water erosion problems, icing issues, and STILL requires heavy wood beams. Earth has great compressive strength (when correctly compacted and containing the right aggregates. Indeed, the foundation of every building stands on that Earth. It does NOT have great tensile or shearing strength. You must use other materials for those kinds of installations.
The video also cherry picked adobe buildings as 'unique' in surviving the San Francisco earthquake. That is far from the truth. Most single story and two story buildings survived that quake. There were even quite a few three story buildings that survived that quake.
Concrete buildings are reinforced. So are support columns for roadways, railroad bridges, etc. Modern buildings are much more earthquake proof then ever, particularly in earthquake prone areas. That is now part of the building codes. Much of this came out of quakes like this.
Light frame construction (typical of residential construction) IS built like a house of cards. Those 'cards' are plywood or OSB sheets, which give the building much of it's strength. The framing they attach to is the other part of that structure. Properly constructed, these buildings last a very long time.
Too many builders these days use PAPER sheets as the sheer wall. This is BAD construction. It will come apart even before the new house sells. These include million dollar homes where the plumbing doesn't work properly, the electrical system is a fire hazard, the sheer walls are dissolving, the beams aren't resting on a column or valid path to the ground, and even the drywall is installed so haphazardly that it looks like some child did it with all the quality of a treehouse. Brick mortar so defective, that bricks are falling off the facing, even over entrance areas (a real hazard!). Drainage systems non-effective or not sloped correctly. Not a square corner in the place. Door trim that doesn't line up or has gaps. Doors that don't stay open or closed or stick. Window frames that have rot conditions (yes, you can see it under new paint).
And they pay off inspectors to pass this junk.
Million dollar homes. Also, beware of the flippers. They often RUIN a house structure while 'improving' the home.
Before you buy ANY home, get it inspected by an independent inspector that YOU hire. Look for cracks in the foundation, beams that aren't touching their support columns (or don't have one!). The sheer wall material condition (check for rot as well!). Weather membrane and insulation systems that have failed and are causing rot. Check the condition of the brick mortar to see if it's cracking or flaking.
Modern materials each have their uses and cost. Compacted earth/straw (adobe) only works in certain areas (typically desert areas where it doesn't rain a lot). Cement is expensive.
ANY building is a compromise between cost of materials, the purpose of the building, access, and the cost of using the materials, and the surrounding environment (earthquake zone, flooding zone, hurricane prone areas, sandy soils, swampy soils, nearby rivers and lakes, elevation and grade, nearby vegetation, and of course, availability of water, sewage disposal, drainage, electricity, and communications systems, ventilation requirements, and fenestration.
For example, a residence has very different requirements than a theater packed with an audience does, just in ventilation system requirements.
The IRC and IBC and all the other various codes are the MINIMUM requirements for construction. They are there for your safety. The government inspectors are SUPPOSED to enforce them, but too often they do not. THIS is how substandard houses and other buildings come to be.
Meh.
There is no such thing as "building codes".
BS. FU. Phallus fallacy.
Science denies you. |
| 08-06-2026 06:18 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15300) |
Robert wrote:
Meh.
There is no such thing as "building codes".
BS. FU. Phallus fallacy.
Science denies you.
What an amazing, value-added contribution! |
| 08-06-2026 16:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert wrote:
Meh.
There is no such thing as "building codes".
BS. FU. Phallus fallacy.
Science denies you.
What an amazing, value-added contribution!
I could have dramatically increased the VALUE of my post by offering a list of things that science is NOT
Science is not a banana, for example.
And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
But most chemists would say that providing the first name of an ion in solution is more than enough to identify the "chemical" of interest.
I wouldn't know. As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
Into the Night... Now there is a real chemist.
A real chemist would have appreciated my "white liquor" joke, and the distinction between the kind of "alcohol" involved in a pulp mill versus a distillery. Lignin is an ALCOHOL, but it is not a carbohydrate. "White liquor" contains either ethanol or it contains NaOH and Na2S, depending on whether it is a pulp mill or a distillery. |
| 18-06-2026 18:26 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15300) |
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks? |
| 18-06-2026 23:14 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
Is it still fun to be a troll at climate-debate.com?
Are we having fun yet?
Some of the fun stopped when the other trolls got tired of the place.
No more fresh meat brought by Google into the ambush.
No more unsuspecting new members imagining they could possibly engage in some kind of rational discussion in which they express concern about climate.
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Stratospheric denitrification is a radically different process than the denitrification that occurs in soil and water. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize the context to realize which definition applies.
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry. |
| 19-06-2026 04:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
Is it still fun to be a troll at climate-debate.com?
Are we having fun yet?
Some of the fun stopped when the other trolls got tired of the place.
No more fresh meat brought by Google into the ambush.
No more unsuspecting new members imagining they could possibly engage in some kind of rational discussion in which they express concern about climate.
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Stratospheric denitrification is a radically different process than the denitrification that occurs in soil and water. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize the context to realize which definition applies.
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry. Whining about your word games won't help you.
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 |
| 19-06-2026 20:58 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
Is it still fun to be a troll at climate-debate.com?
Are we having fun yet?
Some of the fun stopped when the other trolls got tired of the place.
No more fresh meat brought by Google into the ambush.
No more unsuspecting new members imagining they could possibly engage in some kind of rational discussion in which they express concern about climate.
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Stratospheric denitrification is a radically different process than the denitrification that occurs in soil and water. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize the context to realize which definition applies.
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry. Whining about your word games won't help you.
I'm not the one who needs help.
I'm not the one trying to pretend to be a chemist without a clue what chemistry terms even mean.
I understand why carbonate IS a "chemical" because I know what carbonate DOES as a pH buffer, and where carbonate COMES FROM as the product of microbial sulfate reduction.
Because as a real chemist, I know what those "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" actually MEAN.
I'm not the one who desperately needs "help" from any word games. |
| 20-06-2026 08:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one who needs help.
It could be argued that you are beyond help.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one trying to pretend to be a chemist without a clue what chemistry terms even mean.
Yes, you are.
Im a BM wrote:
I understand why carbonate IS a "chemical" because I know what carbonate DOES as a pH buffer, and where carbonate COMES FROM as the product of microbial sulfate reduction.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
You don't understand pH.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Because as a real chemist, I know what those "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" actually MEAN.
Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one who desperately needs "help" from any word games.
I would say not. You are quite capable of conducting your useless word games.
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 |
| 21-06-2026 15:43 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one who needs help.
It could be argued that you are beyond help.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one trying to pretend to be a chemist without a clue what chemistry terms even mean.
Yes, you are.
Im a BM wrote:
I understand why carbonate IS a "chemical" because I know what carbonate DOES as a pH buffer, and where carbonate COMES FROM as the product of microbial sulfate reduction.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
You don't understand pH.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Because as a real chemist, I know what those "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" actually MEAN.
Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm not the one who desperately needs "help" from any word games.
I would say not. You are quite capable of conducting your useless word games.
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann
"Inversion fallacy." - Into the Night |
| 23-06-2026 17:19 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
NO MORE REFERENCE TO WORDS THAT ARE "NOT A CHEMICAL"
"Fluoride" = F-. Because "fluoride is not a chemical". We'll say "F-"
"Carbonate" = CO3(2-). Because "carbonate is not a chemical".
"Bicarbonate" = HCO3-. Because "bicarbonate is not a chemical".
"Sulfate" = SO4(2-). Because "sulfate is not a chemical".
"Phenol" = C6H5OH. Because "phenol is not a chemical".
"Phosphate" = PO4(3-). Because "phosphate is not a chemical."
"Arsenate" = AsO4(3-). Because "arsenate is not a chemical."
"Ammonium" = NH4+. Because "ammonium is not a chemical."
"Nitrate" = NO3-. Because "nitrate is not a chemical."
And the list goes on and on for all the ION NAMES that Into the Night is not capable of understanding to be the name of a "chemical".
To avoid ITN feeling the need to TROLL and SPAM with lists of every word that he deems to be "not a chemical", I will not use ION NAMES. Just chemical formulas for them.
Perhaps there is a "chemistry" reason why CO3(2-) is "not a chemical"?
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
Is it still fun to be a troll at climate-debate.com?
Are we having fun yet?
Some of the fun stopped when the other trolls got tired of the place.
No more fresh meat brought by Google into the ambush.
No more unsuspecting new members imagining they could possibly engage in some kind of rational discussion in which they express concern about climate.
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Stratospheric denitrification is a radically different process than the denitrification that occurs in soil and water. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize the context to realize which definition applies.
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry. |
| 23-06-2026 22:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
NO MORE REFERENCE TO WORDS THAT ARE "NOT A CHEMICAL"
"Fluoride" = F-. Because "fluoride is not a chemical". We'll say "F-"
"Carbonate" = CO3(2-). Because "carbonate is not a chemical".
"Bicarbonate" = HCO3-. Because "bicarbonate is not a chemical".
"Sulfate" = SO4(2-). Because "sulfate is not a chemical".
"Phenol" = C6H5OH. Because "phenol is not a chemical".
"Phosphate" = PO4(3-). Because "phosphate is not a chemical."
"Arsenate" = AsO4(3-). Because "arsenate is not a chemical."
"Ammonium" = NH4+. Because "ammonium is not a chemical."
"Nitrate" = NO3-. Because "nitrate is not a chemical."
And the list goes on and on for all the ION NAMES that Into the Night is not capable of understanding to be the name of a "chemical".
To avoid ITN feeling the need to TROLL and SPAM with lists of every word that he deems to be "not a chemical", I will not use ION NAMES. Just chemical formulas for them.
Perhaps there is a "chemistry" reason why CO3(2-) is "not a chemical"?
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.
Phosphate is not a chemical.
Arsenate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
...deleted whining...
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Climate cannot change.
You deny the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
There is no 'eccentric interpretation' of any math formula.
You either accept the law, or you don't.
You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
You can't blame your word games on anybody else, Robert.
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Your word games are useless, Robert. They won't work here.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illiteracy on anybody else.
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 |
| 24-06-2026 02:41 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
"Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night
Low hanging fruit is too tempting to pass up.
Dictionaries, search engines, chemistry textbooks ALL seem to agree that phenol IS a chemical.
Phenol is the name of a chemical also known as carbolic acid, C6H5OH.
It is a six member aromatic carbon benzene ring with one hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to one of the carbon atoms. Phenol is an aromatic alcohol.
The melting point of pure phenol is about 40.5-41.0 degrees centigrade.
Anyone can look up all the other properties of this well known CHEMICAL.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
NO MORE REFERENCE TO WORDS THAT ARE "NOT A CHEMICAL"
"Fluoride" = F-. Because "fluoride is not a chemical". We'll say "F-"
"Carbonate" = CO3(2-). Because "carbonate is not a chemical".
"Bicarbonate" = HCO3-. Because "bicarbonate is not a chemical".
"Sulfate" = SO4(2-). Because "sulfate is not a chemical".
"Phenol" = C6H5OH. Because "phenol is not a chemical".
"Phosphate" = PO4(3-). Because "phosphate is not a chemical."
"Arsenate" = AsO4(3-). Because "arsenate is not a chemical."
"Ammonium" = NH4+. Because "ammonium is not a chemical."
"Nitrate" = NO3-. Because "nitrate is not a chemical."
And the list goes on and on for all the ION NAMES that Into the Night is not capable of understanding to be the name of a "chemical".
To avoid ITN feeling the need to TROLL and SPAM with lists of every word that he deems to be "not a chemical", I will not use ION NAMES. Just chemical formulas for them.
Perhaps there is a "chemistry" reason why CO3(2-) is "not a chemical"?
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.
Phosphate is not a chemical.
Arsenate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
...deleted whining...
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Climate cannot change.
You deny the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
There is no 'eccentric interpretation' of any math formula.
You either accept the law, or you don't.
You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
You can't blame your word games on anybody else, Robert.
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Your word games are useless, Robert. They won't work here.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illiteracy on anybody else. |
| 25-06-2026 14:44 |
sealover★★★★★
(2111) |
Gosh! Into the Night just LOVES to write sentences that end with the unsupported contrarian assertion of "..is not a chemical."
His post below has more than a dozen such unilateral declarations.
Maybe just ONCE he could explain WHY he believes that is important in any way.
"Phenol is not a chemical", says Into the Night.
So what? Why does it matter? Before going there, DOES it matter?
Phenol is one of many phenols, but it is the ONLY phenol with formula C6H5OH.
WHY is phenol "not a chemical", Into the Night?
WHY do you think it matters so much to write the "..is not a chemical" thing?
Do you even know what a "chemical" IS? Apparently not.
What about the specific compound known as "phenol" or "carbolic acid" makes it "not a chemical" in your OPINION?
If that's too hard, tell me why you wrote "CO3(2-) is not a chemical"
What about CO3(2-) fails to qualify as a "chemical"?
Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT often hinges on writing a long list of things that are "not a chemical". And virtually nothing else, except maybe "Science is not.." or "Hydrogen is not iron" kind of thing. The science of "is NOT" won't help you.
Im a BM wrote:
"Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night
Low hanging fruit is too tempting to pass up.
Dictionaries, search engines, chemistry textbooks ALL seem to agree that phenol IS a chemical.
Phenol is the name of a chemical also known as carbolic acid, C6H5OH.
It is a six member aromatic carbon benzene ring with one hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to one of the carbon atoms. Phenol is an aromatic alcohol.
The melting point of pure phenol is about 40.5-41.0 degrees centigrade.
Anyone can look up all the other properties of this well known CHEMICAL.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
NO MORE REFERENCE TO WORDS THAT ARE "NOT A CHEMICAL"
"Fluoride" = F-. Because "fluoride is not a chemical". We'll say "F-"
"Carbonate" = CO3(2-). Because "carbonate is not a chemical".
"Bicarbonate" = HCO3-. Because "bicarbonate is not a chemical".
"Sulfate" = SO4(2-). Because "sulfate is not a chemical".
"Phenol" = C6H5OH. Because "phenol is not a chemical".
"Phosphate" = PO4(3-). Because "phosphate is not a chemical."
"Arsenate" = AsO4(3-). Because "arsenate is not a chemical."
"Ammonium" = NH4+. Because "ammonium is not a chemical."
"Nitrate" = NO3-. Because "nitrate is not a chemical."
And the list goes on and on for all the ION NAMES that Into the Night is not capable of understanding to be the name of a "chemical".
To avoid ITN feeling the need to TROLL and SPAM with lists of every word that he deems to be "not a chemical", I will not use ION NAMES. Just chemical formulas for them.
Perhaps there is a "chemistry" reason why CO3(2-) is "not a chemical"?
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.
Phosphate is not a chemical.
Arsenate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: And everything that is NOT a chemical needs to be identified.
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of blaming Into the Night for your inability to grasp the concept of categories.
Im a BM wrote: But most chemists would say ...
Oooops, you have slipped back into your usual mode of pretending to speak for countless, unidentified others who know more than you do.
Im a BM wrote: As you astutely observed, I couldn't possibly have a degree in chemistry, and the Commie colleges I attended only teach one to ignore science.
You did confess to attending UC Davis, yes?
Have you ever considered taking courses in a State that doesn't prohibit science and fireworks?
...deleted whining...
Nobody to pester with demands for an unambiguous definition of "climate change" that does not violate a very eccentric interpretation of thermodynamics.
Climate cannot change.
You deny the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
There is no 'eccentric interpretation' of any math formula.
You either accept the law, or you don't.
You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Word games versus comprehension.
Love that "fluoride is not a chemical" crap. That's all a chemist needs to say.
You can't blame your word games on anybody else, Robert.
Fluoride is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Some have minds broad enough to fit more than one understanding for a term, depending on context.
Denitrification versus denitrification.
Your word games are useless, Robert. They won't work here.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate versus carbonate. A carbonate is any chemical that contains the carbonate ion. The carbonate ion itself happens to be a chemical that contains the carbonate ion. Only an idiot would see a reference to "carbonate" in solution and not realize it doesn't refer to the broad category, but rather the specific carbonate ion, CO3(2-). Obfuscating about it not being a "chemical" reveals basic ignorance about chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illiteracy on anybody else. |
| 25-06-2026 18:54 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
sealover wrote:
Gosh! Into the Night just LOVES to write sentences that end with the unsupported contrarian assertion of "..is not a chemical."
His post below has more than a dozen such unilateral declarations.
Maybe just ONCE he could explain WHY he believes that is important in any way.
...deleted mindless repetition and whining...
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
Dictionaries, search engines, chemistry textbooks ALL seem to agree that phenol IS a chemical.
You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. Void reference fallacy.
No book, search engine, or dictionary defines any word.
Phenol is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phenol is the name of a chemical also known as carbolic acid, C6H5OH.
It is a six member aromatic carbon benzene ring with one hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to one of the carbon atoms. Phenol is an aromatic alcohol.
Phenol is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
The melting point of pure phenol is about 40.5-41.0 degrees centigrade.
Anyone can look up all the other properties of this well known CHEMICAL.
Phenol is not a chemical. There is no 'melting point' in a buzzword.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
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 |
| 28-06-2026 18:13 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Gosh! Into the Night just LOVES to write sentences that end with the unsupported contrarian assertion of "..is not a chemical."
His post below has more than a dozen such unilateral declarations.
Maybe just ONCE he could explain WHY he believes that is important in any way.
...deleted mindless repetition and whining...
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
Dictionaries, search engines, chemistry textbooks ALL seem to agree that phenol IS a chemical.
You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. Void reference fallacy.
No book, search engine, or dictionary defines any word.
Phenol is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phenol is the name of a chemical also known as carbolic acid, C6H5OH.
It is a six member aromatic carbon benzene ring with one hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to one of the carbon atoms. Phenol is an aromatic alcohol.
Phenol is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
The melting point of pure phenol is about 40.5-41.0 degrees centigrade.
Anyone can look up all the other properties of this well known CHEMICAL.
Phenol is not a chemical. There is no 'melting point' in a buzzword.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
You keep insisting that "phenol is not a chemical".
You keep PROVING that you cannot possibly be someone who studied chemistry.
"Not a chemical" is the only chemistry you know. And you have it wrong!
You have wasted countless hours of your life typing sentences that end with "..is not a chemical." As if that explains something... As if that is ALL that is needed to fully explain something or anything.
I imagine you can understand how military war vets resent punks who LIE that they were ever in combat, pretending that they ever served.
Perhaps not to the same extreme, but scientists resent punks who LIE that they ever studied science enough to understand it, pretending they have earned the professional title of "chemist", for example..
Now, imagine if that punk poser who pretends to be a combat vet goes and heckles the actual war hero, accusing him of being a LIAR with fake medals. |
| 28-06-2026 22:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
You keep insisting that "phenol is not a chemical".
Phenol is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
You keep PROVING that you cannot possibly be someone who studied chemistry.
Attempted proof by inversion.
Im a BM wrote:
"Not a chemical" is the only chemistry you know. And you have it wrong!
You have wasted countless hours of your life typing sentences that end with "..is not a chemical." As if that explains something... As if that is ALL that is needed to fully explain something or anything.
I am not going to teach chemistry to you, but I will point out your stupid buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
I imagine you can understand how military war vets resent punks who LIE that they were ever in combat, pretending that they ever served.
You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps not to the same extreme, but scientists resent punks who LIE that they ever studied science enough to understand it, pretending they have earned the professional title of "chemist", for example..
You deny science and chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Now, imagine if that punk poser who pretends to be a combat vet goes and heckles the actual war hero, accusing him of being a LIAR with fake medals.
You never served.
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 |
| 29-06-2026 15:13 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15300) |
Im a BM wrote: You keep PROVING that you cannot possibly be someone who studied chemistry.
You keep DECLARING that he cannot possibly be someone who studied chemistry. The problem is that you don't support this assertion either.
Im a BM wrote: "Not a chemical" is the only chemistry you know.
He knows what categories are. You do not; you have it wrong!
You have wasted countless hours of your life typing sentences that involve "Climate Change" as if your WACKY religion is somehow real.
Im a BM wrote: I imagine you can understand how military war vets resent punks who LIE that they were ever in combat, pretending that they ever served.
The main thing is that you are asking people to believe that you have an active imagination, and I think everyone can agree with that.
Im a BM wrote: Perhaps not to the same extreme, but scientists resent punks who LIE that they ever studied science enough to understand it ...
... which is why people like you are resented wherever science is discussed. The most you bring to the table is spam and WACKY Marxist religious dogma.
You are not a scientist by any stretch of even your imagination. |
| 29-06-2026 19:31 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You keep insisting that "phenol is not a chemical".
Phenol is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
You keep PROVING that you cannot possibly be someone who studied chemistry.
Attempted proof by inversion.
Im a BM wrote:
"Not a chemical" is the only chemistry you know. And you have it wrong!
You have wasted countless hours of your life typing sentences that end with "..is not a chemical." As if that explains something... As if that is ALL that is needed to fully explain something or anything.
I am not going to teach chemistry to you, but I will point out your stupid buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
I imagine you can understand how military war vets resent punks who LIE that they were ever in combat, pretending that they ever served.
You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps not to the same extreme, but scientists resent punks who LIE that they ever studied science enough to understand it, pretending they have earned the professional title of "chemist", for example..
You deny science and chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Now, imagine if that punk poser who pretends to be a combat vet goes and heckles the actual war hero, accusing him of being a LIAR with fake medals.
You never served.
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Well it may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord
But you're going to have to serve somebody"
- Bob Dylan (from "Gotta Serve Somebody")
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
Into the Night, if what you are doing here at climate-debate.com qualifies as some kind of "serving"... You're going to have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord. But you're going to have to serve somebody. And I already know which side YOU are on. |
| 29-06-2026 23:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
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 |
| 29-06-2026 23:45 |
sealover★★★★★
(2111) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
Well, I never served drinks at a casino as part of my chemistry training. |
| 30-06-2026 01:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
Well, I never served drinks at a casino as part of my chemistry training.
Why do you think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
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 |
| 30-06-2026 18:15 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
Well, I never served drinks at a casino as part of my chemistry training.
Why do you think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
I am not responsible for YOUR problems.
Don't try to blame ME for all your PROBLEMS.
YOUR problems are not MY fault.
I cannot fix your problems because I did not cause them.
Why do YOU think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
Because it's the only place you ever REALLY worked with "white liquor"!
Sure, you HEARD about the stuff they use in the pulping mill, but you never got close enough to learn what was IN it. You never worked there as a "chemist". |
| 30-06-2026 22:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24227) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
Well, I never served drinks at a casino as part of my chemistry training.
Why do you think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
I am not responsible for YOUR problems.
Don't try to blame ME for all your PROBLEMS.
YOUR problems are not MY fault.
I cannot fix your problems because I did not cause them.
Why do YOU think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
Because it's the only place you ever REALLY worked with "white liquor"!
Sure, you HEARD about the stuff they use in the pulping mill, but you never got close enough to learn what was IN it. You never worked there as a "chemist".
Inversion fallacy. Childish mockery. Grow up.
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 |
| 06-07-2026 15:06 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3669) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"You never served." - Into the Night
"But you're going to have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're going to have to serve somebody
Your word games won't work.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I assert that it is YOU who "never served".
My nation sent me overseas for more than two years of service in the Corps.
I VOLUNTEERED for it. They didn't have to draft me.
Bullshit. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
My life was directly threatened on multiple occasions for my overseas volunteer service in behalf of the US government, with the Corps. The Peace Corps!
The Peace Corps is not the military. You never served.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining word games...
Your word games won't work here. Pivot fallacies.
Well, I never served drinks at a casino as part of my chemistry training.
Why do you think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
I am not responsible for YOUR problems.
Don't try to blame ME for all your PROBLEMS.
YOUR problems are not MY fault.
I cannot fix your problems because I did not cause them.
Why do YOU think serving drinks at a casino is 'chemistry training'??
Because it's the only place you ever REALLY worked with "white liquor"!
Sure, you HEARD about the stuff they use in the pulping mill, but you never got close enough to learn what was IN it. You never worked there as a "chemist".
Inversion fallacy. Childish mockery. Grow up.
You are about to read a bunch of sentences that you wrote.
You are a nothing. You deny science. You don't even know what science is. You are not a chemist, a scientist, or an 'expert' of any kind. Go and learn some science. Go and learn what buffering is. Grow up. |