While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
--scott

Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? 1%. Who
lives in and around cities? 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
lose that one bigtime.

Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.
In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.

Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
a thousandfold difference.


--
Derek

Bigamy is carrying respectability to a criminal extreme.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, Derek rolled initiative and posted the following:

Acid rain in the
eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.

Apologies. That should read "eastern half of the United States"

--
Derek

Wisdom is knowing what to do with what you know.

On Aug 12, 5:19*pm, Derek wrote:

No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
that.

According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
your account?

Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.

I give you "UV for killing bacteria in water" from alt.home.repair.

That's my own post! ...and it's under Home Repair, a far cry from "TAP
WATER VS BOTTLED WATER."

And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
tap water.

and?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 5:19*pm, Derek wrote:

No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
that.

According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
your account?

Can you tell me the exact name and I'll research it. TIA.

I give you "UV for killing bacteria in water" from alt.home.repair.

That's my own post! ...and it's under Home Repair, a far cry from "TAP
WATER VS BOTTLED WATER."

Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.

And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
tap water.

and?

And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".

Care to rephrase?


--
Derek

Stop searching forever. Happiness is just next to you.

On Aug 12, 5:33*pm, Derek wrote:
While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
of our air.

So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
Funny how you never answer this.

Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
and comes back down as precipitation.

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
do you continue to duck this fact?

It never stops being water.

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.

Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe.

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
believe.

It is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.

What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into
the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and
popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating
yourself!


To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.

B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.

Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
better.

I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
simplified and scientifically incorrect.

I'll ask you again to spell them out.

There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
not making it.

B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

On Aug 12, 5:41*pm, Derek wrote:
While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
--scott

Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? 1%. Who
lives in and around cities? 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
lose that one bigtime.

Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.

The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was
that auto pollution coal factory pollution. However the levels are
the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it
dissipates to lower levels.

In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.

The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
a thousandfold difference.

Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still
right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000
fold or more. Nice try.
If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out
the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use
daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful
chemicals.

On Aug 12, 6:57*pm, Derek wrote:

Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.

No, I meant no "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" NG exists. That's been my
contention all along. Furthermore, why would anyone half sane provide
a source which is my own ??

And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
tap water.

and?

And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".

And?
What has one to do with the other ??

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 5:33*pm, Derek wrote:
While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
of our air.

So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
Funny how you never answer this.

Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
and comes back down as precipitation.

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
do you continue to duck this fact?

I don't "duck" this fact. I argue that vaporization of water is
insufficient for the creation of "air." It's only a small part of what
we breathe, given that over 99% of what we breathe is something else.

It never stops being water.

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.

Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.

Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe.

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
believe.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

It is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.

What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into
the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and
popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating
yourself!

I said that water vapor mixes with air. You're arguing the opposite.
It's a matter of capacity and quantity. You can't a large volume into
something of lesser volume.

To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.

B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

Because I'm not an astrophysicist.

You argue that vaporized water produced our air. Yet water requires
the gases hydrogen and oxygen. They had to be around first before they
could combine to form water.

What you're arguing is potentially circular, and logically flawed.

Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.

Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
better.

I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
simplified and scientifically incorrect.

I'll ask you again to spell them out.

I have. Repeatedly.

There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
not making it.

B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

Throwing insults isn't backing yourself up.

--
Derek

"Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a
vigorous mind." -- Samuel Johnson

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 5:41*pm, Derek wrote:
While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 7:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
--scott

Do I need to? Ever hear of Youtube or tv? Fact is coal is awful, but
times that by at least 1000 and this is how bad all the accumulated
auto exhaust is. Furthermore, who lives near coal plants? 1%. Who
lives in and around cities? 90%. Weak argument. Sorry to see you
lose that one bigtime.

Actually, one does not have to live near a coal plan to be affected.

The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was
that auto pollution coal factory pollution. However the levels are
the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it
dissipates to lower levels.

Are you suggesting that I, too, am a goof? It's certainly arguable
given the time I've put into this discussion.

In fact, living farther away can be more problematic. Acid rain in the
eastern half of the state is created by pollution on the West Coast.
Airborne pollution doesn't stay put.

The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

That, I can agree with.

Your statistics on coal versus cars also seem a bit off. In 2000,
carbon emissions in the U.S. from transportation are estimated to be
513 million metric tons. Carbon emissions from coal are estimated to
be 570 million metric tons. That suggests parity in the pollution, not
a thousandfold difference.

Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still
right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000
fold or more. Nice try.

My figures come from the US Department of Energy, as reported by
mindfully.org. What are yours but opinion and hyperbole?

Asserting that you're still right even if figures prove you wrong
isn't science. It's dogma... again.

If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out
the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use
daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful
chemicals.

This statement proves nothing except that you're too busy to back up
your assertions.

--
Derek

If a kiss speaks volumes, it is seldom a first edition.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 6:57*pm, Derek wrote:

Of course it's your own post. You're being given credit for starting
the thread. Go back and read what Dominic wrote.

No, I meant no "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" NG exists. That's been my
contention all along. Furthermore, why would anyone half sane provide
a source which is my own ??

No one said that "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" existed as a newsgroup.
Look up "straw man."

As for why I'd provide a source that was your own, consider that you
claimed said source didn't exist. I've proved that it does.

And while it is true that your original question was about bottled
water, the discussion quickly moved to tap water. And you, yourself,
later commented in the thread about the harmful stuff present in your
tap water.

and?

And, in response to Dominic's reference (including group name) you
said "No such thread exists for discussing tap water".

And?
What has one to do with the other ??

I'm just acknowledging the facts as evident in a thread at
alt.home.repair - a thread that you claimed doesn't exist.

--
Derek

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped." -- Elbert Hubbard

On Aug 12, 7:39 pm, Derek wrote:

I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

Now it's insufficient?! So now you agree that I'm partly right. Pretty
soon you'll be in full agreement with my first view lol.


Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
of our air.

So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
Funny how you never answer this.

Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
and comes back down as precipitation.

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
do you continue to duck this fact?

I don't "duck" this fact.
I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

You've just ducked it again. You won't admit that a portion of what we
breathe is evaporated air! Admit I'm right and be done with it.

It never stops being water.

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.
Wrong again. Didn't you do this experiment in highschool? Maybe you
haven't got that far yet. It's about grade 7. Heat a pint of water in
a kettle with a huge balloon tied to the spout. The balloon will
quickly fill so big it bursts. Stop before it bursts. Let it condense.
The water will pool. Drain the water. What's left? You tell me.

Don't play footsie here, answer the question.

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
believe.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

Who said it did?

I said that water vapor mixes with air.
Where? That was my argument almost word for word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude what you been smoking? Honestly.

I can't waste more time with you. You win! I give up. I cry uncle. At
least you've been ontopic and I thank you for that.

I'll wait for someone else to take the batton from you.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 7:39 pm, Derek wrote:

I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

Now it's insufficient?! So now you agree that I'm partly right. Pretty
soon you'll be in full agreement with my first view lol.

By "insufficient," I mean "wholly insufficient." I'm not likely to
agree with your first view.

Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
of our air.

So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
Funny how you never answer this.

Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
and comes back down as precipitation.

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
do you continue to duck this fact?

I don't "duck" this fact.
I argue that vaporization of water is insufficient for the creation of "air."

You've just ducked it again. You won't admit that a portion of what we
breathe is evaporated air! Admit I'm right and be done with it.

No, I don't read further down.

It never stops being water.

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.

Wrong again. Didn't you do this experiment in highschool? Maybe you
haven't got that far yet. It's about grade 7. Heat a pint of water in
a kettle with a huge balloon tied to the spout. The balloon will
quickly fill so big it bursts. Stop before it bursts. Let it condense.
The water will pool. Drain the water. What's left? You tell me.

Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

But it never stops being water.

Don't play footsie here, answer the question.

That sounds like a line from "A Few Good Men."

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
believe.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

Who said it did?

You, with your assertion that water boiling on hot lava gave us air.

I said that water vapor mixes with air.

Where? That was my argument almost word for word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude what you been smoking? Honestly.

No. It's the reverse of your argument. You cannot mix a larger volume
into a smaller one. The devil is in the details.

He also, apparently, went down to Georgia.

I can't waste more time with you. You win! I give up. I cry uncle. At
least you've been ontopic and I thank you for that.

Actually, I've been completely off-topic, as nothing I've written in
response to you is about tea.

I'll wait for someone else to take the batton from you.

They can pry the baton out of my cold, dead hand.

--
Derek

Nice guys get sick.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, Derek rolled initiative and posted the following:

No, I don't read further down.

Danged grammar errors. I meant, "No, I don't. Read further down."

Nertz.
--
Derek

"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide
stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork." -- Edward Abbey

On Aug 12, 8:11*pm, Derek wrote:
Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.

You like being wrong a lot huh. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm
getting tired of proving you wrong.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

On Aug 12, 8:11*pm, Derek wrote:
Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well
as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool
down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie
because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.

You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."

You like being wrong a lot huh. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm
getting tired of proving you wrong.

I'm just getting tired.

--
Derek

Troutman's Fourth Postulate: Interchangeable tapes won't.