quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen.my argument doesn't necessitate annihilation of kelvins rule?really? Point out Where..

Your argument has not been presented in that form.  Hence it is not formal. QED.

Next time.  Lie less.

[profitis]

Incorrect @mark E.I have not destroyed my own argument(not claim) over contact potentials.infact,you've destroyed your defense.phil and I predicted that you would fallback onto the switch issue as a last desperate line of defence,gues what,you did (-:

[profitis]

@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short.he has to attack me directly on the issue of cyclic spillover.if he fails to do this then he cannot present a solid defence case on which to stand.

[profitis]

Mr sarkeizen.you have to show to the scientists who are watching here that spillover is not spontaneously cyclic.that is the only way out for you.

[sarkeizen]

@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short

Dude.  Where is this imaginary formal argument of yours?  This is just back to a month or so ago where you also claimed that you had a formal argument.  Yawn.

If you can present a formal argument stemming from a textbook cite.  I can defeat or show that it's not formal.  So far you haven't done either, so again this is just back to you hiding something and again I have no problem saying that I can't refute an argument that you have never presented.