quentron.com

[profitis]

lol yeah you win a noddy badge @sarkeizen.so instead of interrogating me directly on the physics of concentration cells like your supposed to do your attempt to sabotage efforted steps to cite-and-splain this shit by your incessant uploading some non-relevency e.g. english lit,spacebars,punctuation, 'correct' textbook editions,'wrong' encyclopedias,'dishonest' tendencies,perpetual definitions,eternal irrelevencies,etc etc,didnt pay off. But hey,i have to give you some credit,after all it was you who catalysed that wikipedia article discovery of mine.maybe your on my side in this courtcase and i dont even know it @sarkeizen.i must be careful

[SeaMonkey]

Sarkeizen plays the game of "legalism" where
the rules of procedure determine who "wins"
and who "loses."  It is precisely the same game
which is played in today's so-called Courts where
the Judge and the Attorneys act their respective
roles (as actors) while they conduct their "business."

There is no interest in establishing truth and deception
is not only permissible; it is encouraged.

The World of Science has become infected with the
same sort of procedural nonsense.  It is a sign of the
times in which we now find ourselves.

The world-wide system of deception and exploitation
is nearing its end... 

[profitis]

true @seamonkey however if twasnt for sarkeizen,s incessant lawyertwists i wouldve still been sitting silent,waiting for a courtcase,something to ponder.. Thus we can say that both the anti and the pro are necessary for evolution of some kind of knowledge,discovery.i was just saying this to mark dansie not so long ago with regards to his neverending scuffle with stirling allen.

[sarkeizen]

so instead of interrogating me directly on the physics of concentration cells

Dude, I asked you for a formal argument going from ordinary electrochemistry textbooks to your conclusion.  That is interrogating you on physics.  However it does appear to be requesting more evidence than you have.

sabotage efforted steps to cite-and-splain this shit

ROFL.  You're such a liar.  You haven't provided a single proper cite.  NOT ONE.  The only thing close was where told me to get a completely different textbook than what you claim to be citing from and that you made me wait months for AND you said you did it deliberately.  Nobody would believe that you have even made a small attempt to cite and argue as was asked.

english lit,spacebars,punctuation

Your English is like that of a ten year old.   Several people have complained and I think we all know you are doing it deliberately.  So just asking you to drop the fake moron-speak and type like an adult shouldn't be a problem.

'correct' textbook editions

You are lying. You told me to get a completely different textbook than the one you appear to have.  This isn't about "editions" moron.

'wrong' encyclopedias

You are lying. I haven't said an encyclopedia is wrong.  You said your argument was in EVERY textbook.  So citing something other than wikipedia should be easy.  It wasn't so that makes your claim suspect.  From there you were only able to reference obscure papers.  Often lying about them because, of course you haven't read them.

'dishonest' tendencies

Dude, you have admitted to lying to me at least four times about KEY POINTS.  Most of your above points are lies. I have been completely honest with you this whole time.  Your dishonesty is unfair and wrong.

perpetual definitions

You are lying.   If I don't know what you're talking about I should be allowed to ask for a definition.  You are the one who outright REFUSES to define terms and the DEMANDS people evaluate the evidence.  Mind you the fact that you talk like a 10 year old doesn't help.

eternal irrelevencies

Everything I've asked for, to my knowledge I've explained usually multiple times and I've usually explained why what you provided instead is stupid.  However if there's any outstanding question about why I am asking you to provide something.  Please feel free to ask.

Sarkeizen plays the game of "legalism" where the rules of procedure determine who "wins" and who "loses."  It is precisely the same game
which is played in today's so-called Courts where the Judge and the Attorneys act their respective roles (as actors) while they conduct their "business."

Going for an oscar?  You should with melodrama like that.

What I've asked Profitis for is simply the only question which I think can be reasonably determined here given what an enormous douche profitis is.  That is: "Can Profitis support his assertion to the degree which he has asserted it?".

The answer is...No.  He has said that textbooks and textbooks alone, without observing anything else can make his point about eternal batteries.  He has also stated that no textbook will directly and unambiguously  state "here's how you make an external battery".  So the ONLY way he can make his point is to argue using pure logic from an assertion (or assertions) in textbooks to his conclusion.   Which if you pay close attention you'll see is exactly what has been asked for and exactly what profitis the asshole has avoided doing for months.

There is no interest in establishing truth and deception is not only permissible; it is encouraged.

Uh...did you not notice the number of times Profitis lied and admitted to lying to me?  No?  Well don't let that get in the way of your vicarious victimhood.

Seriously part of the benefit of a formal logical argument is that it is above deception.  It simply is valid or invalid.  Any ambiguity can be resolved with sufficient effort.  Which is a good reason for a deceptive person like profitis would avoid it.

The World of Science has become infected with the same sort of procedural nonsense.  It is a sign of the times in which we now find ourselves.

I'm not a spokesperson for the "World of Science" I'm glad you think you are.  However whatever nonsense you are thinking it's clearly incorrect.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen ..so you,re basicly saying that you,re a stubborn-ass.that you must have a cite and a splain in the exact order you want,the punctuation you want,the way you want,forwards to backward,that i must show a predictive text starting from nernst equation to diffusion cells to spontaneous repetitive thermodynamics,correct? Without kelvin rules correct?for you to be satisfied by my argument yes?