quentron.com

[profitis]

Thanks phil.either they intentionally avoid or they truly know jackshit about the subject

[sarkeizen]

profitis is 100% correct

Probably not.

MarkE and Sarcastic have for dozens of posts avoided answering a simple question clearly posed by a simple diagram.

Awww it's so cute you need to give me a nickname because you can't fight me man-to-man. :-)  As I've said before I've never once pretended to be an electrochemist, or physicist. 

Is this because they do not know the answer?

I admitted that I can't answer an electrochemical question ages ago but if you are too lazy to read the thread or to stupid to think that you might be wrong...well ok that last label fits but still...

or is it that their sole purpose on this site is to knock and criticise?

False dilemma.  See, the math guy picked out your pre-preschool logic in 0.4 sec flat.  Which is why if profitis can...like he led me to believe many times over produce a formal argument.  I'll see where it's wrong.  Same with you and your delusions about Quenco.  You had to "get offended" pretty quickly in order to avoid getting beat down.

Of course if you do answer profitis with a sensible and direct response to his challenge you will no doubt prove to the forum that what you have to say is based upon some knowledge, and not simple naysaying.

Naysaying is just countering someones assertion with a negative assertion.  Again if you read anything instead of just making shit up.  You would see that's not what I do.  Instead I lay out what I need to understand the question and then I crush it into dust.

So far I must say that the lack or response, by forum members against unsupported negativity, does nothing for the reputation of this site as a forum to openly discuss energy concepts and ideas.

Actually if you again, read this thread you would see that profitis is,  even by a number OU believers to be a jerk who can't actually engage in a discussion.  Open discussion requires that the person you are talking to is willing to provide information that you ask for.  This is part of the social contract of discussion.  Something you've never been known for understanding either Phillip - assuming you're not just profitis.

[Philip Hardcastle]

@profitis, as you can see from Sarkeizen's post, he openly admits he knows nothing about the subject, I suggest that you should not argue physics or chemistry with him on this thread, unless you simply want to wind him up.



This leaves MarkE to respond, fortunately for you MarkE does claim to be an expert on physics and chemistry.

[sarkeizen]

@profitis, as you can see from Sarkeizen's post, he openly admits he knows nothing about the subject, I suggest that you should not argue physics or chemistry with him on this thread

Do you ever get anything right Phillip?

I have openly admitted from the start that I'm not a physicist or a electrochemist.  That's different than knowing nothing.  In fact most of the people who talk on OU are not physicists or electrochemists.   Are you excluding them from having conversations here too?  And after that stirring speech about how OU is going downhill too.

The fact of the matter is that profitis claimed he had a formal logical argument many times over.  If he was, as you say: lying.  Well that's not really my fault.  Part of the social contract is giving people the benefit of the doubt.

[profitis]

Yes Mark E throws his weight around here to play the superscientist @phil.he coulvde given me a straight answer to my childrens question long ago if he is what he projects himself to be yet he malingered,made same demands as sarkeizen. Maybe sarkeizen is mark E??