Hal.

I'm 3500 miles away in my country and I need no proof that these grievances happened . It reads like a summary CBS evening news for the past few years . That's too radical , forgive me . If you are in the US and you still want proof you know which side you are on . Wake up !

CaptainPanic wanted some poetry !

Oh , how mood swings happen , boo hoo , boo hoo ! I'm still posting ! Can you recognise the science now ?

The issue that imatfaal links to in post #27 is one of censorship . Ted , ( Dermot Morgan , RIP , 1952 - 1998 ) , had to toe the line as a member of the clergy of the Catholic church . He had to be seen to be against the freedom of broadcasting as the film in question was surely too shocking for people to handle . Ted was a part time protester , when he went home he didn't actually care . Twas the divorce of the censor from Rome ! Is OWS a part time protest ? Will people go home and not actually care about protesting when they are having their ordinary monotonous lives ? Is it just something to do on a trip to town in very late summer ?

Een klootzak is een klootzak , een klootzak zal altijd een klootzak zijn . Een idiot is een idiot , en nog een idiot zal altijd een idiot zijn . Twee klootzaken zijn twee klootzaken en twee klootzaken zal altijd twee klootzaken zijn . Een grapje is een grapje en een grapje ................................ ga eventjes verder kaaskop .

.

The world is watching . Gone are the days of ' it happened last week ' , ' it happened yesterday ' , it's on the net within an hour . Nearly live yoga , ooooh , alongside coppers , ask swansont for a translation , beating brains on the front of automobiles . Gandhi passivism , does it work ? Need a petrolbomb , wanna smash every window within a mile ? Is this the poor peaceful middle class , down to the lower lower lower class now ? Is it time to steal food to eat ?

sea !

I didn't say I would , I didn't say I should , I didn't even say I could , I said I'd like to tell you where to get that book in a free download where it wouldn't be against any rules anywhere . I'd also like a helicopter for Christmas and I'd like to tell everybody in sfn where to download a helicopter from , in a zip folder , for free , legally , but it ain't gonna happen . ( pardon the americanish ) Writers should be paid for their work and if anyone knowingly obtains an illegal copy of a work , that is to be frowned upon .

nik01 , I'd like to tell you where to get that book in a free download where it wouldn't be against any rules anywhere .

CaptainPanic , there is nothing more to say .

If three buses always arrived so punctually wouldn't we all be happy ? hypervalent_iodine , You have learned a little to add to all you already know . mississippichem , You dropped in for a quick comment or two that have no effect on my overall impression of the quality of the replies from other people . CaptainPanic , You have a good contribution to make when uninfluenced by the boys at the back of the class .

hypervalent_iodine , Because it would be proper for you now to have to take into account anything you have posted above that is based on a fallacy , I will give you the opportunity to repost any objections you have , whether they be based on non fallacious science or purely political objections . Groetjes , Het spijt me jongen , ik zeker weet het niet wat er hier bedoeld is . Hal.'s melting is a convenient term to apply if you understand what it means and you would like to apply it correctly .

hypervalent_iodine , If you take a gas and change it's phase to a liquid it has been condensed and also a term applied to what has happened is liquified . I don't choose this , this is what it is , the gas has liquified . Your problem hypervalent_iodine is that you didn't know that condensation is a liquification example .

hypervalent_iodine , I am describing melting . Also , when a gas liquifies it has become a liquid and is termed liquified . Liquifying is when a material changes to become a liquid . Liquified petroleum gas is when a petroleum gas is liquified from the gaseous state and held under enough pressure to maintain the state of being a liquid . Condensing is liquification .

CaptainPanic , Should it be so simple as to equate liquification with Hal.'s melting in simple equality , life would be so much the easier . An example of why liquification would be inappropriate now follows . Confusion could exist if the term liquification were to be used to describe Hal.'s melting . If water was condensed from the gaseous to the liquid phase , the condensing would not be Hal.'s melting , though liquification would have taken place . I am happy that Hal.'s melting describes my view of melting .

Mississippichem , Hal.'s melting is simple , think of conventional melting and all that has to be done to prove it . Think of taking away any part of it's proof which is dependent on the reverse phase change . So , if for instance you extracted heat and the reverse phase change happened and you used the fact that you had the original material again to show you melted the material after only one of the two phase changes , your proof would be dependent on reversibility of the phase change . Hal.'s melting is simply what you get when this proof is taken away . Is it of use ? Is it convenient ? Use it at your convenience .

dragonstar57 , The information required to understand Hal.'s melting is there , if you would like to choose what it does or does not mean based on what you think it does or does not mean , you are welcome to do so . Walk around with the wrong idea and you will be none the wiser . Because I am the person who has the point of view which Hal.'s melting refers to , I am the person who can tell you whether something does or does not conform to Hal.'s melting , unless you totally understand the point of view , in which case you wouldn't need clarity , which I think you don't . If you think that examples I have given are examples of melting and are also , because you understand the point of view , examples of Hal.'s melting , then there is no issue of disagreement as far as these examples are concerned . If there are examples I have given which you clearly think are not examples of conventional melting and I have said they are examples of conventional melting , I can explain . If you understand Hal.'s melting and you think an example I have given does not conform to Hal.'s melting , explain the issue and which post it is in , I shall try to change your view .

yes .

I appreciate your opinions , insane_alien .

insane_alien , if the material in question had it's constituents melted either in individual parts or groups of parts and then the material was recombined to give a material the same as what was started with , would you then deem the material as having been melted before recombination ?

insane_alien , if it were shown to be possible that the separated individual constituents or groups of constituents mentioned in post #99 could subsequently be used to remake the original material , would you then agree with the suggestion in post #99 ?

I'm going to make a suggestion . I'll suggest that if a person has a material which is composed of different parts , a piece of mahogany for instance , if they show that they can separate and melt each constituent individually or in groups , then the overall total material shall be deemed to have melted . Does anyone disagree with this ?

insane_alien , Ja zeker , of niet .

Ophiolite , I follow a natural process to explain my point of view . I explain , I see if the person understands , if they don't , I explain , I see if the person understands , if they don't , I explain , at some point a person is just not going to understand for reasons unknown or is just , for want of no better description , taking the p*ss .