Oxygen and Ozone in the Atmosphere

I do not wish to write copiously on this topic and hence I have been rather terse. However, I took the time to read, some of the posts on the links you have provided, for the contents and to also ascertain the relative currency of the contents with respect to the references I have suggested. Some facts are clear from that:

• The contents you have offered are older of 1993/4, while the references I have offered are of 2003; then of course we know that science is always advancing.
• The atoms of Chlorine and oxygen do not exist freely in the ozone layer even as I had asserted, but rather as inactive compounds, even if as determined in 1993/4.
• The stratosphere and the troposphere are demarcated by a region of overlap where the effect of wind movement dies off just below the stratosphere, hence mixing in the stratosphere occurs only by gravity waves hence most mixing is horizontal with prevailing vertical concentration gradients.
  
• Further it is curious that UV can reach the nitrogen molecule within the Ozone layer and break it up and cause the formation of NO yet the UV can not reach the CFC until it has risen above the Ozone Layer - this is very interesting, I should say.

Then, of course, some one is yet to explain how exactly the gases are separated by molecular weight in the heterosphere, keeping in mind that wind movements do not occur in the heterosphere, so then if the gases could separate by molecular weight in the heterosphere where mixing can not be forced by wind movement, then by abstraction conjure an answer about what would happen if there was no wind movements also in the "homosphere" and relate this situation to the question of the OP. An abstract extrapolation(?) Intellectual thought experiment, may be(?)

I am curious as can be reflected by this question: How many research experiments of the Government have been forged? How many of the Star Wars Defense Technology are actually working, including even the ones that test have shown to be working? Darned I forgot, Pluto was never classified by the Government as a Planet.

Clearly, this discussion is not even instructive to me any more, at this time.

>>>>>I am curious as can be reflected by this question: How many research experiments of the Government have been forged? How many of the Star Wars Defense Technology are actually working, including even the ones that test have shown to be working? Darned I forgot, Pluto was never classified by the Government as a Planet.<<<<<

Yes! Of course! Why didn't i see that from the outset? How could I have been so foolish? It is obviously a government consiracy to discredit your impecable logic and limitless knowledge. That can be the only reason for your shifting, dishonest comments. Without a doubt.

Government conspiracy to discredit what logic? Logic of an hypothesis that has never been written? Logic as defined by a mind that misrepresents information of others? What logic?

A well-known fact given as an answer to a statement that was made with broad implications has now become a conspiracy theory? A fact suggested in advise of caution is now a conspiracy theory? That is how you comprehend? Sad. What foolishness we display from poor scholarship.

It is amusing that you call me names and state 'I shall not engage you', and then proceed with your multi-paragraph multi-entry diatribe, which contains wide ranging references from 'gravity waves' to 'nitrogen', and (regrettably) very little in the way of ration development of support of your argument.

The links are interesting, though not pertinent. The links do nothing to support your original assertion that:

>>>...True the other gases may be lighter than the O3, however, their molecules are also not able to diffuse into the O3 layer because of the continuous reaction of the O3 and the other gases at the bottom boundary of the O3 layer...<<<

....Nor do the links provide any support for your numerous other erroneous assertions, such as ....

>>>...the vortex dynamics characteristic of the Coriolis Effect...<<< (there are numerous examples which can be described by the Coriolis force without consideration of vortex dynamics)

>>>...ozonolysis was the technique by which CFC and BFC were destroyed...<<< (CFC and BFC are not destroyed by ozonolysis)

>>>...Pollution control particularly the destruction of PCB and know for a fact that "ozonation" was used to destroy these chemicals CFC...<<< (PCBs are not CFC. CFC by definition contain Fluorine, PCBs do not).

VRBARNETT asks the pertinent question >>>'...The argument between you and benbenben appears to be just between you two. Is it really informative to others?...<<<

I ask myself this question each time, and were it not for editorgbanalysts continual addition of new grossly inaccurate or overtly misleading information, I would quit responding. However I feel compelled to warn someone might otherwise take editorgbanalyst at their word (mistakenly viewing numerous links to academic papers as a sign that editorgbanalyst could be a knowledgeable or trustworthy source of information).

I don't think anything new of value is being added, but it is difficult for me to sit idly by as EDITORGBANALYST introduces new grossly inaccurate information or additional faulty logic. With these rash reactionary comments, one wanders if the information at GBanalysts.com could be any better.

First of all I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no reason to be. In fact I had done some of my work with the help of the Govt. I have often had to submit my proposals to others for review before being accepted and worked on.

Yet I am also fully aware of the implications of the broad statement about everything of the government being correct. Let me ask you the following:

2Cl + O₃ -> Cl₂O + O₂;

Cl₂O + UV -> Cl + ClO;

these and rest of the mechanism are written by others in scientific journals, and are consistent with the observations in the ozone layer. This is not even the areas where I do research.

Concepts are simply refined incrementally as a matter of professional courtesy with additional details.

editorgbanalysts,

I am curious as can be reflected by this question: How many research experiments of the Government have been forged? How many of the Star Wars Defense Technology are actually working, including even the ones that test have shown to be working? Darned I forgot, Pluto was never classified by the Government as a Planet.

I didn't know what to make of this statement. Usually follows from this reasoning some conspiracy thinking, which I find quite common in this forum. Initially I was not singling you out. As I said I was not arguing with you, just presenting a more layman's POV to answer original post. That is why I linked, as I assumed you were, when you linked to wikipedia. Not being or pretending to be an expert I was looking for an explanation that someone with a resonable chemistry background could understand, including myself. The argument between you and benbenben appears to be just between you two. Is it really informative to others?

There is a debate going on in another thread entitled "PCBs and Soil Remediation", and one of the debaters wrote this and it is response #5 second paragraph - you may want to check it out: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/36031#newcomments [and I quote]:

<QUOTE>If your PCB does not burn (at low temp, 800-1000 degrees) it will do little harm. The whole issue arose from a mistake in the 70s. The folks in Japan knew there were PCB in some food, but did not know until years later that some of it had been transformed by overheating into Polychlorinated dioxins, which are very harmful, but harder to find with 70s lab technology. Media hysteria led to new laws and regs worldwide. Once the Government had made that error, and blamed PCB, they could never admit that the 'EMPEROR HAD NO CLOTHES' as the kiddie fable goes.</QUOTE>

The point I am making is there are many times when information have been published too early and mistakes have been found but never corrected, for many reasons. One such reason is that the original publisher is too powerful to be contradicted, or the information just is in accurate. I remember many years ago I wrote a paper on analyzing Random Media, the paper disproved another work done by a Prof at U of Buffalo, very popular in the Chem E field at the time; my paper was reviewed by two Profs at Courant Institute of NYU and found to be very interesting fundamental treatment of the problem. However, I was also told by the NYU Profs, that the paper will never be published by the Chem E field because of the contradictions of Profs, "That is just the way it is" I was told. Yet because of that paper I was granted admission, at my preference, into a top notch math-U PhD program - if I wanted to.

My statement is a matter of caution, not of conspiracy.

The ozone depletion theory was based on the dimer theory of Molina & Molina as given in this reference:

For anyone who wants the correct information, here is what MIT says is correct.

It must also be correct well because after all it is being taught in a course in MIT, but wait a minute, Thermodynamic analysis, by a NASA scientists demolishes the chemistry - the reaction mechanism:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ozo/vortex.html

Then, of course, let us not forget even for a moment that Molina and Molina never performed a single experiment, but rather performed reaction-rates comparative analysis in arriving at their chemistry:

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=89

I shall give the references to newer experiments determining the minimum energy paths followed by Chlorine oxides, further raisng questions.

It is amusing that you call me names and state 'I shall not engage you', and then proceed with your multi-paragraph multi-entry diatribe, which contains wide ranging references from 'gravity waves' to 'nitrogen', and (regrettably) very little in the way of ration development of support of your argument.

The links are interesting, though not pertinent. The links do nothing to support your original assertion that:

>>>...True the other gases may be lighter than the O3, however, their molecules are also not able to diffuse into the O3 layer because of the continuous reaction of the O3 and the other gases at the bottom boundary of the O3 layer...<<<

....Nor do the links provide any support for your numerous other erroneous assertions, such as ....

>>>...the vortex dynamics characteristic of the Coriolis Effect...<<< (there are numerous examples which can be described by the Coriolis force without consideration of vortex dynamics)

>>>...ozonolysis was the technique by which CFC and BFC were destroyed...<<< (CFC and BFC are not destroyed by ozonolysis)

>>>...Pollution control particularly the destruction of PCB and know for a fact that "ozonation" was used to destroy these chemicals CFC...<<< (PCBs are not CFC. CFC by definition contain Fluorine, PCBs do not).

VRBARNETT asks the pertinent question >>>'...The argument between you and benbenben appears to be just between you two. Is it really informative to others?...<<<

I ask myself this question each time, and were it not for editorgbanalysts continual addition of new grossly inaccurate or overtly misleading information, I would quit responding. However I feel compelled to warn someone might otherwise take editorgbanalyst at their word (mistakenly viewing numerous links to academic papers as a sign that editorgbanalyst could be a knowledgeable or trustworthy source of information).

I don't think anything new of value is being added, but it is difficult for me to sit idly by as EDITORGBANALYST introduces new grossly inaccurate information or additional faulty logic. With these rash reactionary comments, one wanders if the information at GBanalysts.com could be any better.

Benbenben,

Now I know for a fact that I was correct when I described you as a person who is not an analytical reader, and as a person who does not bring an iota of rational analysis to anything you read. I should now substantiate this assertion:

• First please note that the Molina and Molina subsumed use of the Ozone Depletion Reaction, as partly developed by Rowland, was based on the implicit use of Inductive Logic: Given the ozone reaction that is accepted - keyword "accepted" and not "proven" - as the operation reaction for Ozone destruction, then it follows that the same reaction must prevail in the vortex seeding the Ozone.
• The NASA Scientist's analysis constitutes a Proof by Counter-Example [the inductive logic of the use of the Ozone depletion reaction in the vortex enables a propagating effect of the NASA Scientist's analysis]: If it does not work here then it does not work anywhere else.

Unfortunately, you could not recognize all this on your own, attesting to my assertions about you and why I am wasting my time debating both my answer to the Op and the irrelevance of your introduction of the Ozone depletion issue into the discourse.

Good luck to you.

Regardless of your personal attacks, the fact remains you have introduced (and refused to correct once indicated) several statements which are either outright false, or at the very least, very misleading by suggestion. These statements include (and are unfortunately not limited to):

>>>...True the other gases may be lighter than the O3, however, their molecules are also not able to diffuse into the O3 layer because of the continuous reaction of the O3 and the other gases at the bottom boundary of the O3 layer...<<<

(this is your original falsehood upon which you have heaped untruth upon untruth.....it is simply not true that a concentration of O3 which is 88ppm at greatest is keeping other lighter gasses from diffusing into the O3 layer. Despite all your attempts to obfuscate, this is simply not supportable. A simple mea culpa would have sufficed. It certainly would have been more honorable than this desperate attempt to be seen correct at all costs, displayed in the following attempts to divert, distort and confuse.)

>>>...the vortex dynamics characteristic of the Coriolis Effect...<<<

(there are numerous examples which can be described by the Coriolis force without consideration of vortex dynamics. Coriolis is a fictitional force which corrects the movement when viewed from a rotating frame of reference.)

>>>...ozonolysis was the technique by which CFC and BFC were destroyed...<<<

(CFC and BFC are not destroyed by ozonolysis.)

>>>...Pollution control particularly the destruction of PCB and know for a fact that "ozonation" was used to destroy these chemicals CFC...<<<

(PCBs are not CFC. CFC by definition contain Fluorine, PCBs do not. What is even more amusing is that in another post you completely contradict what you have said here.)

So, all in all, whether or not you truly see me as a 'poor scholar' or a 'badly behaved person' or 'a person who is not an analytical thinker' or even 'a person who does not bring an iota of rational analysis to anything I read', or any of the other negative discriptions you have made for me, the fact remains, you have made numerous false and misleading statements. Worse yet is that when these are brought to light, you refuse to correct your mistakes and attack the person pointing these out (me).

One can only assume your actions are not only indicative of great misunderstandinging in your own mind, but surely must also indicate substantial inaccuracies in any catalogue of information overwhich you exert control... such as www.gbanalysts.com who could trust such a source that is so quick to offer opinion as fact, and then so ready to vehemently defend that position when it is questioned.

Those interested in the truth, have enough here to judge. Your attempts to confuse the issue by siting articles concerning gravity waves and referencing Molina or Rowland (as if you were best friends), are transparent to all but the most caual observer. Anyone with a genuine interest will not be fooled. While your insistence on name calling is a dead give-away, even without that childishness, your arguments fall apart on close inspection. You fail to support your original assertions, and with good reason. Your original assertions are not supportable.

Benbenben,

Regarding your statement above [and I quote]: "but surely must also indicate substantial inaccuracies in any catalogue of information overwhich you exert control... such as www.gbanalysts.com who could trust such a source that is so quick to offer opinion as fact, and then so ready to vehemently defend that position when it is questioned"

I have to tell you, I am surprised that you would read a website without understanding its mission, and then determine from the mission whether or not you can consider yourself as being part of the target audience.

For your benefit, let me recall to you that the mission of GB-Analysts Reports is the "Integrated Knowledge based Analyses of Socio-Economic Issues" The key-words here are "integrated knowledge" and "analyses". So the site is targeted to people who can integrate knowledge as it deals with integrated knowledge, and the site does not provide answers rather the site provides analyses from which knowledge integrators than develop their answers.

Clarifying the mission even more, please recognize that The object of the site is constructive abstraction of knowledge. the keyword here is abstraction, and let me explain that to you just in case so that you may better understand: A good illustration comes from Mathematics: In real life people can only think in concrete terms with respect to two and three dimensional spaces, however, to deal with four or more dimensional spaces one has to abstract the general knowledge of 2-D and 3-D and abstract it using inductive logic.

So do please, do not fret over GB-Analaysts Reports if you do not understand the reports posted there; the posts are for those Universities, and Chemical and Biotechnology Companies, and Telecommunications Companies, and the myriad of core readers constituting it consumer-base for whom the posts are targeted.

Indeed, the site does have its core readership and followers and you may choose not to be one them, but that is alright, as the site is not aimed at everybody, but aimed rather at that slice of society that can be deemed of the Thinkers category of society, and as asserted in Corporate Culture by Deal and Kennedy at most only twenty-five percent of society have that quality, while Myers-Briggs asserts that only about 18.75 percent of society can think abstractly.

So if you do not read the site, and seemingly you are not qualified member of the target audience, it would not impact the core readers who have recognized the quality of the posts; and I thank you.

Benbenben,

Regarding your submissions in relation to the discourse, which I should address below, I want to start however, by explaining my Moniker to you - a subject of some interest to some readesr on this forum: "Give a boy fish and he eats may be for a day, teach a boy how to fish and he will eat everyday" and by this I mean give solutions to people and they will continue to come back for solutions, but teach them the thinking process about finding solutions and they will always be able to find their own solutions.

So as a matter of principle I do not give answers to any question on this forum, rather I evolve the thougt process involved in finding the answers, and let the person find the answer as a matter of self-accomplishment. That said, I am sure that you will now appreciate my response to your remarks, if you will task yourself to think about my responses and also find answers for yourself.

Benbenben:
>>>...the vortex dynamics characteristic of the Coriolis Effect...<<<

(there are numerous examples which can be described by the Coriolis force without consideration of vortex dynamics. Coriolis is a fictitional force which corrects the movement when viewed from a rotating frame of reference.)

My Response:

Coriolis Effects while a result of the movement of the Earth and consequentially a rotational effect accounting for wind dynamics, large scale wind movements and hurricanes and tornadoes are also ascribed to this some effects. Tornadoes and hurricanes are of the class of large scale vortex dynamics. Do please see this short reference, it is not long so you should be able to hold your attention span long enough to finish reading it.

However perhaps, I should remind you that my introduction of Coriolis effects was to point out to you that the Ozone layer is not well-mixed as per message # 10 and your assertion of message #11. This rebuttal by me was borne out by my reference to you:<QUOTE>: The vertical stratification, with warmer layers above and cooler layers below, makes the stratosphere dynamically stable: there is no regular convection and associated turbulence in this part of the atmosphere. The stratosphere is a region of intense interactions among radiative, dynamical, and chemical processes, in which horizontal mixing of gaseous components proceeds much more rapidly than vertical mixing.</QUOTE>The next thing you did was to try to run away from the baseless assertion you made to attempt to discredit my statement.

Benbenben:
>>>...ozonolysis was the technique by which CFC and BFC were destroyed...<<<

(CFC and BFC are not destroyed by ozonolysis.)

My response:
In 1987 I was in Happauge , Long island, NY in a company that was using it. As I said you should be circumspect as you can know everything that is happening everywhere, and people keep a lot of trade secrets, even as I do.

Benbenben:
>>>...Pollution control particularly the destruction of PCB and know for a fact that "ozonation" was used to destroy these chemicals CFC...<<<

(PCBs are not CFC. CFC by definition contain Fluorine, PCBs do not. What is even more amusing is that in another post you completely contradict what you have said here.)

My Response:

I told you once before that you are a "slanderous person" by constantly misrepresenting people. In 1987 through 1994, I was involve in Pollution Control, particularly PCB, and I course of that I meant with various companies and researchers, one of which was the company working with ozonolysis and Ozonation. I was in Pollution Control would mean to any research-oriented person that I had to have been investigating all methods being used for various pollutants to see their applicability to PCBs, but that is not the way your mind interpreted it, instead your mind interpreted that statement as meaning I do not know the difference PCBs and CFCs? You see my point, and why I would brand you a "slanderous person". Clearly you are just not educated, again an assertion I now confirm. Research people study knowledge both in their areas of interest and outside of the areas as well.

Benbenben:
>>>...True the other gases may be lighter than the O3, however, their molecules are also not able to diffuse into the O3 layer because of the continuous reaction of the O3 and the other gases at the bottom boundary of the O3 layer...<<<

(this is your original falsehood upon which you have heaped untruth upon untruth.....it is simply not true that a concentration of O3 which is 88ppm at greatest is keeping other lighter gasses from diffusing into the O3 layer. Despite all your attempts to obfuscate, this is simply not supportable. A simple mea culpa would have sufficed. It certainly would have been more honorable than this desperate attempt to be seen correct at all costs, displayed in the following attempts to divert, distort and confuse.)

My Response:
Message Post: #10: <QUOTE>Gas diffusion boundaries are generally blurred - there exists a region of overlap that may be called "reaction zone" within which the reaction is occurring, after all, as everyone in reaction engineering knows, those reactions between gases are not instantaneous reactions that there will be a clear boundary; that is also known. However, generally there is a boundary or front lower done towards Earth so to say at which there are no ozone molecules of perceptible concentration and there is also a front higher up at which there will not be other "co-reactant" gases of perceptible concentration. </QUOTE>

It is not my fault that you are not able to process the information here; note the key phrases: "reaction Zone", "no ozone molecules of perceptible concentration" and "other "co-reactant" gases of perceptible concentration"It is not clear to me why you have found it so difficult to understand these statements other than that you have got issues.

Now let me begin by telling you that the Ozone Layer is not called that just because of elevated concentration of Ozone in that region as you would like to believe as per one of your other message#11. Please note that the Ozone Layer is called that also because that is the region where it is produced primarily. The Atmospheric layers were primarily defined according to the temperature changes. So then as I had stated previously, the ozone concentration therefore suffers drop off towards the earth as other gases suffers drop-off towards the top of the stratosphere – the temperature-based define Atmospheric Layer where the Ozone Layer is. Unfortunately you have already confirmed this observation all by yourself so I will not even waste my time.

Benbenben:
>>>...True the other gases may be lighter than the O3, however, their molecules are also not able to diffuse into the O3 layer because of the continuous reaction of the O3 and the other gases at the bottom boundary of the O3 layer...<<<

(this is your original falsehood upon which you have heaped untruth upon untruth.....it is simply not true that a concentration of O3 which is 88ppm at greatest is keeping other lighter gasses from diffusing into the O3 layer. Despite all your attempts to obfuscate, this is simply not supportable. A simple mea culpa would have sufficed. It certainly would have been more honorable than this desperate attempt to be seen correct at all costs, displayed in the following attempts to divert, distort and confuse.)

My Response:

I do not obfuscate. I try to explain to you the knowledge base you seem unable to grasp. I can tell when I am dealing with someone not knowledgeable enough and is being obnoxious to cover up the ignorance while expecting to learn from the answers given in return to their obnoxious attitude. You are such a person, and hence I do not answer you instead I continue to dismiss you with questions none of which you have been able to answer.

Now I shall repeat my quote again that seem unable to get through into your head: Message Post: #10: <QUOTE>Gas diffusion boundaries are generally blurred - there exists a region of overlap that may be called "reaction zone" within which the reaction is occurring, after all, as everyone in reaction engineering knows, those reactions between gases are not instantaneous reactions that there will be a clear boundary; that is also known. However, generally there is a boundary or front lower done towards Earth so to say at which there are no ozone molecules of perceptible concentration and there is also a front higher up at which there will not be other "co-reactant" gases of perceptible concentration. </QUOTE>

Please recall that I have since followed this up with disproving you on your citation of the Molina & Molina chemistry as the reactions that occur exclusively in the Ozone layer by the following references:

First please observe here that there are reactions always going on in the atmosphere as explained here and particularly in the Ozone Layer: <QUOTE>Ozone is also naturally broken down in the stratosphere by sunlight and by a chemical reaction with various compounds containing nitrogen, hydrogen and chlorine. These chemicals all occur naturally in the atmosphere in very small amounts.</QUOTE>

I then gave you in message #31 these books to read before spoke any further:

Textbook: Free and moving boundary problems‎ by John Crank - Technology & Engineering - 1987 - 425 pages

Then I gave you in message #32 these books to read within the message: The object of the references is "the nonexclusivity of the dominant reaction in the consumption of reactants". Textbook: "Chemically reacting Systems" published by Springer Verlag by an author with a Greek name;

Textbook "Lie Algebra" by Edlene - I think that is the name of the spelling, start with it, and look for his use of this branch of mathematics to prove the entropy inequality.

The Pfaffian Proof of the existence of Entropy based on the use of Lie Algebraic "Pfaffian Expression" The original proof by Pfaffian is about 65 pages long and you will take too long to understand what is in it.

Relating the dimensions of the Pfaffian Expression and the multiplicity of reactions defining the entropy generation function or entropy inequality should give the knowledge you need to understand my answer to the OP.

Please observe the last statement of the above paragraph, I have already told you that I am correct.

Now if you are going to insist that I am wrong, do you think that you should at least bring yourself to the same quality of knowledge by which I have made my assertions?

• Consider that you made reference to Molina & Molina chemistry as part of your answer, I then went off and researched it together with all related works and came back to prove your assertions outright wrong in some respects and in others as suspected wrong answers. That I am able to and willing to bring myself to the same level of knowledge base should tell you how I operate and what I expected of you.
• Consider that by not knowing every research related to the ozone reactions before coming out here to shout about being right shows you as nothing more than a knowledge consumer and not a knowledge generator;
• Consider that I have given you many references none of which you have come out here to admit as having read and acquired any knowledge from;
• Consider that without leaving room for variance in meaning, you came out here and called me a Conspiracy Theorist only to find out that the caution I was suggesting to V Barnett was well-founded by virtue of the work of the NASA Scientist, that I have also given as reference, and yet you accuse me of calling you names.

Do you now recognize the degree of recklessness with which you utter baseless and "slanderous" statements that can only come from a person with problems, that is, if you should reject your ignorance?

I am not here to teach anything to you or people like you who are not capable of originating independent thought, I am here to have discourses with people who are constructive and rational thinkers, and I am afraid you seem not to be one of such.

About the knowledgeable people on this forum you are talking about, are they not part of the human community, really you are not well-read or even widely read, so I refer you yet again to Corporate Culture by Deal and Kennedy, get that book and read all about the Dummy Theorem. You really are pedestrian in your thinking

Now Good day.

'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.'

You have again referenced the work of many authors (I would be surprised if a single author of a work you have referenced would wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your outlandish assertions, I am sure most would not be elated to have their name attached to this particular style of ego-think-pseudoscience). You have again called me names. And most predictably you have once again failed to either, admit your errors, or support these wild assertions. I have detailed these sufficiently, so i won't rehash.

I am curious if you have actually read the papers you reference, or if perchance, you are in the habit of google-ing for argument fodder?

Why don,t you go off and read them then return to debate the issues. Stop obfuscating to hide your inability to read with comprehension. Interestingly I see that one of your dummy friends has already given your irrelevant-to-the-issue remark a good answer. No no I get it, it is you who also marks your answers good answer under a different name? You are pathetic.

If you don't find my remark relevant, then rate it accordingly.

An even better alternative would be: if you don't find my comments so very relevant to the conversation between us (pointing out what you obviously cannot stand; the suggestion that you have made glaring and uncorrected errors) then simply stop responding. The conversation long ago veered from the original topic... about the time you began emphatically asserting that...

'..other gasses..... are NOT able to diffuse into the O₃ layer because of the continuous reaction of the O₃...'

If what you have written is sufficient to support you assertions, then let it stand. If I am so pathetic, then why dignify my comment with a response?

I do have a friend with whom I share certain curiosities. In this way, your vehement denial of any misstatement and excessive referencing, have earned you a fan-club of sorts between us, as a running joke. In this light, my friend used your screen name as a verb the other day. I believe her exact words were "...let's see you B.G.Analyze your way out of this one!..." So one might say you are on the similar track as Google, yet not so promising. I won't see her till the morning, but my suspicion is that you (for once) are correct in one respect: that she rec'd my posting since i showed it too her before she went to bed. She however is no 'dummy', but don't worry I'm sure she will put about as much stock in your evaluation of her as anyone should put in just about anything you write, judging what I have seen thus far.

At any rate, one thing is highly probable. You will be compelled to attempt to 'B.G Analyze' your way into writing more of your drivel. Perhaps you will take some comfort in knowing that you have at least two people in the world looking forward to hearing your response. Even if you do realize the interest in your comments stems mostly from the value as a sort of informal single subject research on extreme cognitive biases (possible abnormal psych?), you should think of the bright side: two people are anxiously awaiting what you have to say! When was the last time you could say that?

Funny, how I also have friends who read your responses and laugh at your foolishness. They even spend time contemplating your mental state regarding this matter. What they have not been able to understand is your determination to convince me that you are right. what they can not understand is why you would put so much effort in something for which you are apparently not being paid.

Or are you being paid to keep up this foolishness? Perhaps that explains it, if not what is in it for you?

If you were an intelligent person you would have understood why I respond to you. But alas you are not.

Let me repeat again, this is what you ought to have done, go and read the books I have referenced as the bases of my responses and then come back and make your assertions based on the contents. So very interesting how you refuse the read the references I give you but you also come here to argue that I always respond to your queries, why do you not respond to my challenges of reading the books to gain the foundation knowledge and then resume the debate?

Really, you should stop diverting attention. then, of course, why have you not stop writing the nonsense knowing fully well that you have not been able to acquire the requisite knowledge of which I challenge you.

You can not read with comprehension, can you?

BTW, at least I know that it is that your girlfriend the dummy who keeps marking your responses good answers were relevant or irrelevant to the issue. Thank you for proving me right after all. Really as Deal and kennedy noted you dummys really self-select into groups.

Bravo! No really, you are truly unbelievable. It is obvious that you are definitely something special, like a new strain of Ebola virus. The confirmation bias you exhibit is without parallel. Case in point, your last response (emphasis added):

>>>'....at least I know that it is that your girlfriend the dummy who keeps marking your responses good answers were relevant or irrelevant to the issue......'<<<

Consistent with your M.O., based on no understanding and too little information to definitively ascertain the truth, you have drawn numerous inaccurate conclusions:

- She marked my response tonight. (Though i suspect this, it is not yet known to me, nor you)

- She is responsible for marking my other responses.

- This in some way 'Proves' you 'right after all'.

- That she is my girlfriend (once again unknown to you with current information, but I am sure that you will attempt to BGAnalyze your way out of this one and claim that i indicated that she is female and that she is my friend, and you only meant 'girlfriend' as a friend who is female, and not the standard meaning with romantic implications. I would certainly be fortunate to have her as my girlfriend, but whether that is the case remains unknown to you).

Throw in a little dash of paranoia:

>>>'...Or are you being paid to keep up this foolishness?...'<<<

Nothing says psychosis like a good paranoid delusion, does it? Yeah, I'm an agent with the IBG (Imaginary Bureau of Gosh-you-certainly-are-free-thinker-we'd-better-keep-tabs-on-you) and my assignment to stop you and your new un- reality from gaining a foothold in the real world. Um, yeah. Oh, I almost forgot. And my 'girlfriend' is my co-agent, tasked with undermining your self worth by cheering for me, and not at all for you.

Wow, that is kind of cathartic, just to spew out complete nonsense! You probably feel better when you spew out a stream like that, the way a drunk must feel better after vomiting, no critical evaluation necessary, just empty that worthlessness. Is that how you got caught up in your whatever-pops-into-my-head-must-be-the-undeniable-truth way of thinking? Perhaps those qualities are what continue to make it irresistible to you, and yet the hangover continues.

And top it off with a generous helping of disordered thought...

>>>.'..If you were an intelligent person you would have understood why I respond to you. But alas you are not.

Let me repeat again, this is what you ought to have done...'<<<

-If it is your belief that I cannot understand what you are writing to me, why do you choose to 'repeat again'? One definition of insanity is repeating the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result.

>>>'...You can not read with comprehension, can you?...'<<<

- Once again, the degree of disorganization in your thoughts shows through here. If you believe me unable to comprehend what you write, how foolish is it to attempt to communicate this idea to me in writing? You would probably find it equally sensible to yell 'you cannot hear me can you?' to a person you believe is deaf. Perhaps your solution for bridging a language barrier is slower and louder speech.

....and that is you, or at least the very consistent self-portrait of you have painted in your numerous responses.

I don't mind considering whether I am peering into or out of the cage at the zoo when looking at you, it is just a frame of reference. I can't help but be amused however when you react by going completely ape-schit.

Thank you for the base amusement. No one should say that fecal tossing primates are in a category of their own, you are certainly provide ample competition.

My interest in your extreme peculiarities dwindles. I am turning to leave the spectacle you have made of yourself. You will have to step outside your now expected pabulum and do something unexpected, something shocking. Tell the truth perhaps.

Can't wait to read it, really.

benbenben,

On a second thought perhaps I shold be more explicit about the point I madeabove in recognition of your poor reading skills.

The point is by your inability to accept the differences in opinion between us, your inability to read materials given to you in reference to better equip yourself prior to coming out to write some more, and given to mental acceptance of my assertion that I am correct and you are well not-so-well-informed, my friends and I are convinced that

You are suffering from schizophrenia.

The same we think is also true of your gang, whom you have now admitted is your girlfriend.

Now the Proof of the above assertion:

The simple tell-tale sign: A person who does one thing again and again while expecting a different answer is a schizophrenic. Your repeated assertion that I am wrong and expecting me to accept such irrespective of the number of times I have asserted to the negative, and given you references none of which you have read, while expecting that my reaction to you will change is the tell-tale of your being a schizophrenic.

benbenben, [or whatever your real name is] seek psychiatric help.

I have earlier suspected that yo have issues, but with this your last communication - even after I have said to you "Good day", which any self-respecting same person would take as a cue to move on still escapes you - you gave a confirmation of your mental problems.

>>>.'...The simple tell-tale sign...'<<<

This demonstrates one of the major dysfunctions in your thinking. You are not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, and yet you have convinced yourself that you 'know' there is a simple tell tale sign of schizophrenia.

Have you realized that you are mimicking what I am saying? Or do you believe that what you have typed is original? what do you and all your friends sitting around your computer think. The record is there....

I say you are obfuscating and ignoring the question at hand.

You say the same thing.

I relate a story to you about how your name has changed into verb with a negative connotation, leading to a running joke between a friend and I.

You write that you and your friends laugh at me.

I suggest to you that one definition of insanity if repeating something again and again and expecting a different result. I also note that you are exhibiting paranoid delusions and disorganized thoughts which are symptoms of psychosis.

You diagnose me as schizophrenic.

While you are certainly tipping the 'how-crazy-is-this-one scale', your are comming up very light in the originality department.

Still would rather not see a psychiatrist, right?

Delayed telling you about my friends laughing about your insanity because they wanted the assertion to be defensible and true, so they waited until you wrote again.

Really you should see a psychiatrist.

Really? That all?

I mean I expected the weak explanation. What surprises me isthat your last coment lacks the fiery passion in defense of indefensible positions. Are you truly through? Or was this a fluke?

Schizophrenic Benbenben,

Still would rather not go on your mental medication, right? Really you should see a psychiatrist for support. You are schizophrenic, and apparently strikes most active only at late hours of the day.