quentron.com

[profitis]

my statement @sarkeizen.the last one..tap-tap-tap(fingers tapping the desk)

[sarkeizen]

my statement @sarkeizen.the last one

...is either unrelated to the True Profitis Statement or unproved.  You can't have both.  This has been proved.

Either pretty much means I win.  Think about it for a change....

[profitis]

not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one..clip..clip..clip(cutting my toenails now)

[sarkeizen]

not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one

As you said it's either irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement or has no cogent argument.  Do you usually go around attempting to disprove irrelevant things or things which have no cogent argument?

[profitis]

it is highly relevant and exceptionaly cogent in line with textbooks @sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words that can be destroyed instantly e.g. 'a oxygen concentration cell is a kelvin bust' (you would just show me a differential pressure o2 cell) but i can come to you with standard formality words:' a equi-pressure oxygen gas electrode overpotential differential cell necessitates an kelvin bust',because its impossible for it to not necessitate a kelvin bust.