>> I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
>> question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?

>
> Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered
> through various ideas rather than staying focused,

>I'd like to suggest
>that you stay away from accusations of ADD.

>> Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the
>> others thrown at me? I don't have the time.

>
> I am not responsible for what others have "thrown" at you. Neither
> does the misbehavior of others taint my response.

> On Aug 14, 5:00 am, Derek wrote:

>>> I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the
>>> question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?

>>
>> Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered
>> through various ideas rather than staying focused,

>
> I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
> miander.

>> I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
>> miander.

>
> And yet, you've still not answered the question I first posed. You
> responded with a reference about a junior high experiment. But you
> haven't yet explained how a physical reaction could have produced an
> outcome only capable by a chemical reaction.

>> Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.

>
> If I've been meandering, it's because I've been following you.

>> I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as
>> in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument
>> lol.

>
> Asserting it doesn't make it so.

> On Aug 14, 9:41 am, Derek wrote:

>>> I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every
>>> miander.

>>
>> And yet, you've still not answered the question I first posed. You
>> responded with a reference about a junior high experiment. But you
>> haven't yet explained how a physical reaction could have produced an
>> outcome only capable by a chemical reaction.

>
> Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

>

>> Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

>
> Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a
> physical reaction, huh?

>
> Doing what? Your work for you?

>> Bla bla bla do the test and put the trollisms aside until you do.

>
> Answer my original question and prove me wrong, and I'll do the test
> following your specifications.

>> more bla

>
> Condescending toward my assertion doesn't make it wrong.

> On Aug 14, 4:06 pm, Derek wrote:

>>

>>> Still can't explain away the balloon full of air huh? Not surprised.

>>
>> Still can't explain how you get a chemical reaction result from a
>> physical reaction, huh?

>
> No. Neither can you.

> a whole bunch of drool
> Derek

> On Aug 14, 5:49 pm, Derek wrote:

>> a whole bunch of drool
>> Derek

>
> The more you should be conducting your test, the more you wanna
> continue with your same boring meaningless drool.
>
> Give it a rest and do the test.

> I gave a simple condition for getting me to do the test. It shouldn't
> take more than a small paragraph if you're actually right.
> Derek
> Even a hawk is an eagle among crows.