|
|
"Marc" <mdandml@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121521019.645258.204640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Al, I wish that were true. Nobody called me out on
> anything because nobody has any knowledge of the
> scientific matter regarding SHEC Labs technology.
> I have to say, you are retarded. Why in Gods name
> would geeknet posters like Don and Dan and K ask
> about the technology and request further information
> iif they felt they "called me on it" . As a matter of
> fact, and this goes most of all for you, I have seen no
> evidence of any type of understanding, scientific or
> otherwise.
You suggested that carbon from the methane would be "made into food grade
and sold." When I questioned how this would be accomplished, you answered
"Water Gas Shift Reactor, you numbnut." At that point I 'called you on
it'! You've presented "no evidence of any type of understanding,
scientific or otherwise." When your responses are BS, others could respond
by saying "your responses are BS" or they could respond by asking questions
and offering a chance for you to clean up the BS. So far you've chosen to
leave all the BS and when it's found to be BS you point to the SHEC Labs
website. Maybe Tom Beck will send a scientist here to 'clean up' after
you.
> What I do see are blatant fools who stick to their
> "world is flat" methodology and are too lazy and
> or incompetent and or plain out dumb to prove
> themselves right or wrong. SHEC Labs technology
> has been validated, and that wasn't good enough
> for K-dog. Al, you know what you dumbkoff, I
> will agree. The Geeknet losers are right and
> Canada, APS, Giffels, Hydrogenics, U of T, US
> AID, Mexico, the US, and 13 other countries are
> wrong. This will never work. Boooohooooo.
> Guess what Al old boy, you still are worthless,
> and I can afford to lose every dime I have on SHEC
> Labs.
>
> As most know, that is not the case of course as
> is the result of "big Al"'s rantings. SHEC is poised
> to be a multibillion dollar company in the area of
> hydrogen production where hydrogen is used
> presently or in the future.
>
When you refer to "most", to whom are you refering? It would appear you
haven't found anyone anywhere friendly to your posts. What are you trying
to accomplish, Marc? Is this what you call success?
Don W.
|
|