Tap Water VS Bottled Water

Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

RTFLAO!

No assertions, test results young lad. Where's your data?

Get busy.

Yeah I got "dance to the music" on my ipod. Psych.

Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.

more bla

Do the bloody test and shut up.

That's what you are.

Agree. Sharpen those drill bits and load the explosives. Do the ballon test. BFN.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August

14, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a physical reaction, huh?

Doing what? Your work for you?

Answer my original question and prove me wrong, and I'll do the test following your specifications.

Condescending toward my assertion doesn't make it wrong.

See above.

What's the problem? Are you incapable of answering my original question? All else in this thread stems from your assertion that steam is air. Answer my question and prove me wrong.

But answer it directly. This isn't Athens and you're not Socrates.

No. Neither can you.

No lazy ass. I've done it. Get those eyes checked.

When? 2012?

Instead of wasting your life away typing, go to Michaels for a balloon.

Proof positive.

I posted the (only) original question.

Do your test and you'll answer it for yourself. And stop wasting time here.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August

14, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

I'm not the one who claimed that it happened when water meets lava. You made the claim. I challenged it. It's not up to me to prove me wrong.

Since you apparently can't answer my question, I guess we'll never know.

I don't even have to leave the house. Come on. Prove me wrong and I'll get the kettle cooking.

You might want to pay attention to quotation indicators. You just replied to yourself.

And yet, you can't answer mine.

I know the answer. You've yet to demonstrate that you do. Answer the question.

The more you should be conducting your test, the more you wanna continue with your same boring meaningless drool.

Give it a rest and do the test.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August

14, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

I gave a simple condition for getting me to do the test. It shouldn't take more than a small paragraph if you're actually right.

Still stalling hawk? Is this a confession that I'm right?

On 2008-08-15, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: [drivel, as usual]

Are you this much of a f****it in real life, too?

N.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Friday, August 15,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

You know exactly what it'll take to get me to do the experiment. Any delay in my inflating a balloon is dependent upon your refusal or inability to answer the question.

The longer you refuse to answer the question, the more it appears that you don't have a clue what it is.

No, the discussion is clearly over your IQ. Smart people often seem dumb to ignorant people.

Still stauling. Desperation taking over I see. You give up before even starting? "Idleness is the root of all ignorance."

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Saturday, August

16, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Just answer the question and prove to me that you know what you're talking about and I'm wrong. It's not my job to do experiments to prove your ideas are right. To continue to insist that USENET works that way borders on delusional.

For Avagadro's sake, just answer the question. Then you and I can discuss mmol/mol and mg/L at STP. It'll be a gas!

Monty Python has Eric Idle. We are entertained here by Derek Idle.

Wisdom is like playing a violin in public and learning the instrument as one goes on. Get practicing.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Saturday, August

16, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

What's the matter? Did "mmol/mol at STP" go over your head?

Suggestions that I need to practice from someone who's yet to prove he can play a note don't count for much.

You apparently can't answer the question and are expecting me to answer it for you. I know my answer. I'm not going to write yours for you.

Yawn; you're not even very good at entertaining baiting. *plonk*

N.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

Lost your quotes? It was fun while it lasted. Yeah I've lost interest in regurgitating trollisms back and forth. I just pass by on occasion to see if someone is up to the challenge.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Sunday, August 17,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Sometimes. But helping obnoxious people demonstrate their ignorance and hubris never gets old.

Discussion of mmol of dissolve gases per mol of sea water, or mg of them per liter of sea water, isn't "offtopic trollism" just because you miss the reference.

After all, on more than one occasion, we in this group have discussed the effect of repeated boiling of water, the resulting deoxygenation of that water, and its effect on flavor. Same concepts, different issue.

When you've reduced yourself to commenting on randomly inserted quotes in a .sig, accusations of "trollisms" provide indication of projection.

When you're ready to support your own positions, come on back. I'll likely still be reading R.F.D.T.

In case of fire, don't waste the energy. Put a kettle of water above the flames .. and the rest is history.