Aussies confused by science fact or fiction: survey

snip

And it transpires that you understood none of it.

Nobody understood it because it doesn't make sense - you talk rubbish.

Your response is consistent with stupidity or ignorance. Ignorance can be
reversed if there is some brain activity but not when it is blocked by a
closed mind. In the case of the application of the gas law to CO2, it is
not a matter of opinion but simple fact, so I'm afraid that the prognosis
for you is not good.

Gas law ( whatever that is) has got nothing to do with the fact that
anything with mass, like CO2, has weight in a gravitational field has
weight. That is why the gases in the atmoshere give us airpressue

You don't understand what weightlessness is, you don't understand how gases mix
and you completely fail to understand that gravity is necessary to explain how
gases behave in the Earth's atmosphere.

Are you mentally ill or just stupid?

Funny that out of the entire world just you and Abbott think CO2 is weightless.
Nobody else believes that crap. Nobody.
That makes the pair of you the ignorant fucking idiots.
QED

Tony Abbott, me and the ideal gas law.

please explain how PV=nRTshows CO2 is weightless. At the same time please
explain how we get air pressure. Then go for how a 1kg block of CO2 can
suddenly lose it's weight when it sublimates

PS: It's not a matter of opinion, you fuckwit

it isn't and you are wrong

yaputya

2013-07-22 21:51:24 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

Apologies Lies & Pretence

2013-07-22 21:53:24 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.
--
Kevin Rudd:
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"

Anyone with any credibility would resign after this:
http://youtu.be/m_MCXRQE9Rk

"The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look
at the men he has around him" - Niccolo Machiavelli
http://youtu.be/PtEyAe1QqCg
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/08/25/1225910/116244-katter-swan.jpg
http://polliter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Anthony-Albanese.jpg

Fortunately, there is a solution:
http://www.aroyalflushdraincleaning.com/

ALP policies:
http://www.headlesschooks.org.au
http://www.latestbuy.com.au/img/product-images/beer-350a.jpg

Where the ALP goes to study:
http://www.unimoron.edu.ar

Kevin Rudd...
"First of all, in Australia we are a nation of laws..."

ALP Productivity...
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

******* MUST WATCH VIDEOS *******
http://youtu.be/BVEaHcyMesQ
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
***** BEFORE YOU VOTE LABOR *****

Betrayal!
http://youtu.be/mX4aouzpXhU

Labor's preference to Gillard...
"It is to do everything I *physically* can to stop Mr Abbott becoming
the next prime minister of Australia..."
http://youtu.be/PguhkVG49To

Cleanup Australia Day - 26 June
http://sosnews.org/news/pics2013/labor-dumpbin.gif

Cleanup Australia Day - 15 September?
http://www.universal-soundbank.com/mp3/sounds/12440.mp3
http://www.b3tards.com/v/e709acd8427018b1a7ea/rocket_cow.jpg

Join the ALP, enrolments now open!
http://www.888.com/

Why do Racists have low IQs?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/98326
http://s120.photobucket.com/user/cgull8m/media/2gb.gif.html

Nicola Roxon...
'I don't think we can keep seeing these sorts of human tragedies
occurring...'

Julia Gillard:
"I'd like to also thank Kevin for agreeing to resign from parliament if
he loses, at last"

Dechucka

2013-07-22 22:09:10 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except
your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been
proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved
talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often,
consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

better then being so ignorant that you think CO2 is weightless. Maybe you
believe Turnball practically invented the internet in Aus :-)

yaputya

2013-07-23 20:19:28 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.
Grammar or science, you shoot of your mouth but you really haven't got a clue.

Apologies Lies & Pretence

2013-07-23 20:47:34 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.

Interchangeable (according to your source):
You have just proved that you are a proved arsehole.

=> arsehole

Post by yaputya
Grammar or science, you shoot of your mouth but you really haven't got a clue.

--
Kevin Rudd:
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"

Anyone with any credibility would resign after this:
http://youtu.be/m_MCXRQE9Rk

"The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look
at the men he has around him" - Niccolo Machiavelli
http://youtu.be/PtEyAe1QqCg
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/08/25/1225910/116244-katter-swan.jpg
http://polliter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Anthony-Albanese.jpg

Fortunately, there is a solution:
http://www.aroyalflushdraincleaning.com/

ALP policies:
http://www.headlesschooks.org.au
http://www.latestbuy.com.au/img/product-images/beer-350a.jpg

Where the ALP goes to study:
http://www.unimoron.edu.ar

Kevin Rudd...
"First of all, in Australia we are a nation of laws..."

ALP Productivity...
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

******* MUST WATCH VIDEOS *******
http://youtu.be/BVEaHcyMesQ
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
***** BEFORE YOU VOTE LABOR *****

Betrayal!
http://youtu.be/mX4aouzpXhU

Labor's preference to Gillard...
"It is to do everything I *physically* can to stop Mr Abbott becoming
the next prime minister of Australia..."
http://youtu.be/PguhkVG49To

Cleanup Australia Day - 26 June
http://sosnews.org/news/pics2013/labor-dumpbin.gif

Cleanup Australia Day - 15 September?
http://www.universal-soundbank.com/mp3/sounds/12440.mp3
http://www.b3tards.com/v/e709acd8427018b1a7ea/rocket_cow.jpg

Join the ALP, enrolments now open!
http://www.888.com/

Why do Racists have low IQs?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/98326
http://s120.photobucket.com/user/cgull8m/media/2gb.gif.html

Nicola Roxon...
'I don't think we can keep seeing these sorts of human tragedies
occurring...'

Julia Gillard:
"I'd like to also thank Kevin for agreeing to resign from parliament if
he loses, at last"

yaputya

2013-07-23 21:45:34 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used
more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven
is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal
idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.

You obviously didn't think so, because you tried the cheap shot "You don't do grammar either."
So instead of looking smart you just made yourself look like a stupid arsehole. Again.

BTW Foster has failed to explain his claim: "According to Boyle's law, CO2 *is* weightless."
He did post the following, but it is devoid of any *proof* of *weightless*

The pressure exerted by a volume of an ideal gas at a given temperature is a constant. It depends *not* on the weight of the
molecules but on the *number* of molecules and their energy(T).
Since all of the components of a volume of air will be at the same temperature, they will exert the same pressure. In other words,
irrespective of the weight of the *molecules*, the weight of the gas will be the *same* since it is purely based on the pressure.
Moreover, the molecules will exert the same pressure at the top of a container of air that they do at the bottom, so any scale
will show zero.
This is not my 'position'. It is a simple description of the model which applies at standard temperature and pressure in the
atmosphere

Foster makes these erroneous claims about weighing gases.
1) The weight of a gas is always the same since it is based on the pressure.
2) The gas will weigh zero because the pressure is the same at the top and the bottom of the container.

Different gases DO weigh different amounts at the SAME pressure because their density is different.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html

The weight of a container of gas IS the difference in pressure between the top and bottom areas, which is NOT zero!

"The difference between the average force on the bottom and top of the container is just the weight, mg, of the molecule.
This can be generalized to any number of molecules traveling in random directions."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html

"DISTRIBUTION OF GAS MOLECULES IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD"
"Everyone knows that the air pressure decreases with altitude. This effect is
easily understood qualitatively through the kinetic molecular theory. Random
thermal motion tends to move gas molecules in all directions equally. In the
presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are
slightly favored. This causes the concentration, and thus the pressure of a gas to
be greater at lower elevations and to decrease without limit at higher elevations."
http://www.unalmed.edu.co/~cgpaucar/Gases.pdf

People did think gases were weightless in the past, before instruments were developed
to make scientific measurements.

Dechucka

2013-07-23 22:02:08 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything
except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past
participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been
proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved
talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often,
consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only
showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.

You obviously didn't think so, because you tried the cheap shot "You
don't do grammar either."
So instead of looking smart you just made yourself look like a stupid arsehole. Again.
BTW Foster has failed to explain his claim: "According to Boyle's law, CO2
*is* weightless."
He did post the following, but it is devoid of any *proof* of *weightless*

Most of the components of air (N, O2, CO2) but not H2O obey the Ideal Gas
The pressure exerted by a volume of an ideal gas at a given temperature
is a constant. It depends *not* on the weight of the molecules but on the
*number* of molecules and their energy(T).
Since all of the components of a volume of air will be at the same
temperature, they will exert the same pressure. In other words,
irrespective of the weight of the *molecules*, the weight of the gas will
be the *same* since it is purely based on the pressure.
Moreover, the molecules will exert the same pressure at the top of a
container of air that they do at the bottom, so any scale will show zero.
This is not my 'position'. It is a simple description of the model which
applies at standard temperature and pressure in the atmosphere

Foster makes these erroneous claims about weighing gases.
1) The weight of a gas is always the same since it is based on the pressure.
2) The gas will weigh zero because the pressure is the same at the top and
the bottom of the container.
Different gases DO weigh different amounts at the SAME pressure because
their density is different.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html
The weight of a container of gas IS the difference in pressure between the
top and bottom areas, which is NOT zero!
"The difference between the average force on the bottom and top of the
container is just the weight, mg, of the molecule.
This can be generalized to any number of molecules traveling in random directions."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html
"DISTRIBUTION OF GAS MOLECULES IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD"
"Everyone knows that the air pressure decreases with altitude. This effect is
easily understood qualitatively through the kinetic molecular theory. Random
thermal motion tends to move gas molecules in all directions equally. In the
presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are
slightly favored. This causes the concentration, and thus the pressure of a gas to
be greater at lower elevations and to decrease without limit at higher elevations."
http://www.unalmed.edu.co/~cgpaucar/Gases.pdf
People did think gases were weightless in the past, before instruments were developed
to make scientific measurements.

stop giving facts as this will only confuse Foster and put him in denial
mode. AFAIK even Abbott has backed away from his stupidity and has now gone
onto trading in invisible things can't be done

Apologies Lies & Pretence

2013-07-23 22:47:33 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used
more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven
is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal
idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.

You obviously didn't think so, because you tried the cheap shot "You don't do grammar either."
So instead of looking smart you just made yourself look like a stupid arsehole. Again.
BTW Foster has failed to explain his claim: "According to Boyle's law, CO2 *is* weightless."
He did post the following, but it is devoid of any *proof* of *weightless*

All correct. Gee, you don't do logic, arithmetic, comprehension or
grammar but you can transcribe (cut and paste).

Post by yaputya
Foster makes these erroneous claims about weighing gases.
1) The weight of a gas is always the same since it is based on the pressure.

*In* the atmosphere.

Post by yaputya
2) The gas will weigh zero because the pressure is the same at the top and the bottom of the container.
Different gases DO weigh different amounts at the SAME pressure because their density is different.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html

Molecular weight is completely irrelevant, moron, since we are using the
ideal gas model.

Post by yaputya
The weight of a container of gas IS the difference in pressure between the top and bottom areas, which is NOT zero!

Where is the 'container' in the atmosphere, moron?

Post by yaputya
"The difference between the average force on the bottom and top of the container is just the weight, mg, of the molecule.
This can be generalized to any number of molecules traveling in random directions."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html

No gas behaves *perfectly* like an ideal gas. There are infinistesmally
small *non* *ideal* effects but clearly you do not understand the
concept of a model, nor do you understand that the model is applicable
evidenced by the fact that CO2 exists in the stratosphere. Just imagine
if it didn't - morons like you wouldn't have a case for branding CO2 as
a 'pollutant' and a 'greenhouse gas'.

Post by yaputya
"DISTRIBUTION OF GAS MOLECULES IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD"
"Everyone knows that the air pressure decreases with altitude. This effect is
easily understood qualitatively through the kinetic molecular theory. Random
thermal motion tends to move gas molecules in all directions equally. In the
presence of a gravitational field, however, motions in a downward direction are
slightly favored. This causes the concentration, and thus the pressure of a gas to
be greater at lower elevations and to decrease without limit at higher elevations."
http://www.unalmed.edu.co/~cgpaucar/Gases.pdf
People did think gases were weightless in the past, before instruments were developed
to make scientific measurements.

Right at the start, I told you to get a scale and *measure* the weight.
If you had followed instructions then you wouldn't have made such an
arsehole of yourself.
--
Kevin Rudd:
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"

Anyone with any credibility would resign after this:
http://youtu.be/m_MCXRQE9Rk

"The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look
at the men he has around him" - Niccolo Machiavelli
http://youtu.be/PtEyAe1QqCg
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/08/25/1225910/116244-katter-swan.jpg
http://polliter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Anthony-Albanese.jpg

Fortunately, there is a solution:
http://www.aroyalflushdraincleaning.com/

ALP policies:
http://www.headlesschooks.org.au
http://www.latestbuy.com.au/img/product-images/beer-350a.jpg

Where the ALP goes to study:
http://www.unimoron.edu.ar

Kevin Rudd...
"First of all, in Australia we are a nation of laws..."

ALP Productivity...
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

******* MUST WATCH VIDEOS *******
http://youtu.be/BVEaHcyMesQ
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
***** BEFORE YOU VOTE LABOR *****

Betrayal!
http://youtu.be/mX4aouzpXhU

Labor's preference to Gillard...
"It is to do everything I *physically* can to stop Mr Abbott becoming
the next prime minister of Australia..."
http://youtu.be/PguhkVG49To

Cleanup Australia Day - 26 June
http://sosnews.org/news/pics2013/labor-dumpbin.gif

Cleanup Australia Day - 15 September?
http://www.universal-soundbank.com/mp3/sounds/12440.mp3
http://www.b3tards.com/v/e709acd8427018b1a7ea/rocket_cow.jpg

Join the ALP, enrolments now open!
http://www.888.com/

Why do Racists have low IQs?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/98326
http://s120.photobucket.com/user/cgull8m/media/2gb.gif.html

Nicola Roxon...
'I don't think we can keep seeing these sorts of human tragedies
occurring...'

Julia Gillard:
"I'd like to also thank Kevin for agreeing to resign from parliament if
he loses, at last"

Dechucka

2013-07-24 01:21:43 UTC

You have no concept of science, and you haven't proved anything
except your own ignorance.

Presumably you meant to say: "...you haven't *proven* anything.
You don't do grammar either.

You have shot your mouth off once again, and you are wrong again.
For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past
participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used
more
or
less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been
proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an
adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved
talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven
is
not
a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythm-and often,
consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal
idiom
innocent until proven guilty.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1608/what-is-the-difference-between-proven-and-proved

You have just proved that you are a proven arsehole.

You are looking pretty stupid after that pathetic remark that only
showed up YOUR ignorance of the English language.

You obviously didn't think so, because you tried the cheap shot "You
don't do grammar either."
So instead of looking smart you just made yourself look like a stupid arsehole. Again.
BTW Foster has failed to explain his claim: "According to Boyle's law,
CO2 *is* weightless."
He did post the following, but it is devoid of any *proof* of
*weightless*

Most of the components of air (N, O2, CO2) but not H2O obey the Ideal
The pressure exerted by a volume of an ideal gas at a given temperature
is a constant. It depends *not* on the weight of the
molecules but on the *number* of molecules and their energy(T).
Since all of the components of a volume of air will be at the same
temperature, they will exert the same pressure. In other words,
irrespective of the weight of the *molecules*, the weight of the gas
will be the *same* since it is purely based on the pressure.
Moreover, the molecules will exert the same pressure at the top of a
container of air that they do at the bottom, so any scale
will show zero.
This is not my 'position'. It is a simple description of the model which
applies at standard temperature and pressure in the
atmosphere

All correct. Gee, you don't do logic, arithmetic, comprehension or grammar
but you can transcribe (cut and paste).

Post by yaputya
Foster makes these erroneous claims about weighing gases.
1) The weight of a gas is always the same since it is based on the pressure.

*In* the atmosphere.

wrong

Post by yaputya
2) The gas will weigh zero because the pressure is the same at the top
and the bottom of the container.
Different gases DO weigh different amounts at the SAME pressure because
their density is different.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html

Molecular weight is completely irrelevant, moron, since we are using the
ideal gas model.

no it isn't as anything with mass in a gravitational feild has weight

How does PV=nRT support your case

Post by yaputya
The weight of a container of gas IS the difference in pressure between
the top and bottom areas, which is NOT zero!

Where is the 'container' in the atmosphere, moron?

The atmosphere is obviously a container with the gravitational field acting
on the mass of the gases, if it wasn't we'd all suffocate

Post by yaputya
"The difference between the average force on the bottom and top of the
container is just the weight, mg, of the molecule.
This can be generalized to any number of molecules traveling in random directions."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/weighgas.html

Just imagine if it didn't - morons like you wouldn't have a case for
branding CO2 as a 'pollutant' and a 'greenhouse gas'.

It is

Right at the start, I told you to get a scale and *measure* the weight. If
you had followed instructions then you wouldn't have made such an arsehole
of yourself.

Easy get a 1kg block of dry ice and weigh it, when it sublimates where does
the weight go?

you are a moron

yaputya

2013-07-24 23:11:11 UTC