quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

any person with basic high school knowledge knows that batteries run until equilibrium and you know it too so youre obviously hellbent on sidetracking

If your quote is really in a textbook and it actually supports your position then showing it to me in context can only benefit your position and persuade me.  The only logically consistent reason to NOT provide a cite is because one of those premises is not true or you are being irrational.

QED mofo.

and trying to be funny

No I *am* funny and I've made no secret that you are amusing me.

delayed my promise

You mean broke.  You broke your word several times on the subject of providing a cite and below you say that if I answer then your promise is "not needed".  That sounds an awful lot like "I never intended to keep my promise".  Exactly how many times have you lied in this thread?

No wait.  Your lying is my fault right?  I wonder how long you can tell yourself that?  Probably forever.

,yes or no.focus on my question now forget  the textbook please,yes or no

I am focusing on your question.  I've told you what I need to answer it.  How could that *not* be focusing on your question.  Is logic ever taught in school anymore?  My guess is it probably isn't.

If you want to keep stalling for what are undeniably illogical or irrational reasons then be my guest.  I don't have any stake in the outcome, you are clearly the person halting the conversation by:

i) Demanding we talking about your point and your point only - that we focus on textbooks.
ii) When I comply and focus on textbooks.  You demand I agree or disagree on a point which for all I know is not in a textbook.
iii) When I humbly request a reference to a textbook.  You demand I agree or disagree at which point you will demand that we don't need to talk about textbooks anymore.

Yeah, this stalemate is all my fault. Must be.  On the other hand I wonder how much damage you can cause to your thinking process by forcing yourself to rationalize all this craziness.  I'm glad I have a front row seat.

I really hope that your conflict resolution skills are better than this IRL.  Not that I'd be terribly surprised if they weren't.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen funny indeed but now youre coming back into silly.you want me to run around for references,citations,cross-examinations and cross-textbook quotes for a question that a teenager can answer without hesitation.so now instead of you answering this all-important question so that it can bring closure to my case that you had wanted me to do in the beginning of this chapter you would rather stretch it out for the long haul?preposterous.if you wont answer that logical question,which certainly doesnt require a single citation,how do you propose we move forward to a factual conclusion @sarkeizen? The stalemate is on you now because i want to close instantly. 

[sarkeizen]

you want me to run around for references,citations,cross-examinations and cross-textbook quotes

Slippery slope fallacy.  I asked you for one cite that you claim you would have handy.  So unless you lied about it being in virtually every textbook then presumably you could have supplied it fifty times over in the time you spent being an enormous obstructionist asshole.  Not only that but remember YOU were the one who said "focus on what the textbooks say" and that's what I'm doing.

Next time why not simply argue "Nobody but Profitis says..." you would have had no argument from me on that one.

for a question that a teenager can answer without hesitation.

That's the "ad populum' fallacy.  Look it up you logical loser.

so now instead of you answering this all-important question so that it can bring closure to my case that you had wanted me to do in the beginning of this chapter

Your case was: "all the textbooks say..." so actually it seems far more relevant to find out what the textbooks say than what you say or what the kids on your block say or what your pets say.  Perhaps when you want to find out what textbooks say you consult your friends and/or pets but if you ask me that's a pretty monumentally stupid way to accomplish that.

you would rather stretch it out for the long haul?

I just want to understand the statement I'm agreeing to.  You seem to think that's unnecessary - that probably explains many of your other beliefs.  Not to mention that if this is indeed a piece of information that can be found in a plethora of places then my friend, you are the only person who is at the greatest fault for stretching this out.

if you wont answer that logical question

Sorry if there's one thing you have demonstrated you don't understand.  It's logic.  It's illogical to answer a question you don't understand but you think that's the very very very best way to approach things.  Which is, of course stupid which might just be the easy explanation for your behavior but I'm willing to give it some time to see if there's something else here.

how do you propose we move forward to a factual conclusion

Simple. You provide the cite. You personally and specifically requested that we focus on textbooks, you have implied that the cite is easy to obtain, you even promised to provide it.  I am not making an unreasonable request.

Furthermore, as has been stated before there is no way for this request, if the textbooks really support your point for this request to harm your argument.  Hence, your refusal is not only more time consuming than complying, unreasonable and irrational.

The stalemate is on you now because i want to close instantly.

Absolutely, entirely and utterly incorrect and provably so.

If you want to...ok I have no idea what "close instantly" means but it sounds like something your girlfriend probably complains about.

However if you want for the discussion to progress more quickly then you will provide the cite.  Clearly the only thing you are accomplishing is prolonging the conversation (and amusing me).

[profitis]

@sarkeizen lol! why would you want one quote from a textbook that indicates an everlasting cell when i already just gave you one,you can double-triple check on it by going to  that link i provided in my last quote.i,l answer my question for you,yes a concentration cell will last until equilibrium ie.a air-cell will last until the air is equal at BOTH electrodes case closed. the air level at the top of a glass of ocean liquid will never be the same as on the bottom of the glass of ocean liquid.air is lighter than water,its concentration at the surface of water is massively different than below its surface,permanently.2 identical platinum or gold electrodes,one at the surface and one below the surface cannot permanently equalize their air concentration.only temporarily.

[sarkeizen]

quote from a textbook that indicates an everlasting cell when i already just gave you one

Can you tell me the name of the textbook and the page number (publisher and edition are good too)?  Those are two pretty normal pieces of information in a cite. In fact I mentioned both of them in the example cite I gave you.  Is this a reading comprehension issue?  It's starting to sound like it.

The only thing you've posted is a domain name (if you want to be technical there's a difference between that and a link).  Which, if you convert it into a URL it doesn't locate a document which contains the quote you provided.  If there is some specific URL on that site that you meant to reference then you should probably do that.  A cite, as I told you when you posted your domain name needs to be specific. 

If you were to demand a real person, say your girlfriend (after you apologize for "finishing instantly" of course) to believe something because, as you say "A textbook says it" and then when asked "Which textbook" you just say "Oh some library somewhere has it".  That's probably a good recipe to get slapped...and you would deserve it.

As was proved earlier, there is absolutely no rational reason to deny a reasonable request like this and by not providing it you are being irrational, unethical (you promised a textbook cite - I don't have one) and of course deliberately halting the discussion.

I still wonder why all this song and dance about something you seem to say is incredibly easy to provide but you still spend 100x the time posting about how you refuse to provide it (even though you promised) when you could have provided it and got on with the discussion.

That doesn't sound like someone who has a winning argument in their pocket to me.  Which is giving me all the more reason to want to see the cite.