Climate Change is a fad.

Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I just did.
Lie. You said :
Can you ever respond without attacking people? This is exactly what I was talking about: politicising a subject without actually being qualified to make judgments, and posting from an emotional and partisan level, as opposed to being scientific.
That was directed to me, nobody else that I've seen, maybe I missed the post where you called OTHER PEOPLE on the same... not as a veiled means to cover for your inability to address the argument/

You replied to me. Have you forgotten that fact?
that was also to attack me, NOT as a discussion to the topic.

No, your response did.
This makes no sense.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I call you ignorant and you tell me to read 'science books.' so that I know what I'm talking about. Only real difference is that I'm not whining about it.
Thanks for further conceding that you cannot address the arguments and are now shifting to bait and report tactics.
 
Mar 2015
34,031
19,799
Mad Prophet
Since it can only be produced with their patented process, it's defacto proving me right.
You said that Dupont owns the patent - it does not. They own A patent along with several other manufacturers. They do not own exclusive rights to R-134a, which is central to your theory that it was invented because their patent was expiring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Mar 2015
34,031
19,799
Mad Prophet
Thanks for further conceding that you cannot address the arguments and are now shifting to bait and report tactics.
?????

I did not report you. Ask any moderator via PM if you don't believe me.

I have not "conceded" a thing. I stand pat behind every one of my claims.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
You said that Dupont owns the patent - it does not. They own A patent along with several other manufacturers. They do not own exclusive rights to R-134a, which is central to your theory that it was invented because their patent was expiring.
*facepalm*

What does that mean for the other manufacturers using that patented process?
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
They have their own method of making it, but not a patent on the product.

Other manufacturers may not use their method, that's all.
The correct answer: They pay the patent holder.

(Since the chemical requires a specific process for the composite chemicals to bond in the correct way, there's no alternate method unless making a different product. R-410 for example, or 410a, or R-407, or some other one for other specific use cases, but those are each also under their own patents)
 
Mar 2015
34,031
19,799
Mad Prophet
The correct answer: They pay the patent holder.

(Since the chemical requires a specific process for the composite chemicals to bond in the correct way, there's no alternate method unless making a different product. R-410 for example, or 410a, or R-407, or some other one for other specific use cases, but those are each also under their own patents)
No, that's not the case. More than one company owns a patent for the process to make R-134a.

http://www.igsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Patents-Factsheet-1.pdf

Page 6.

Please don't come back at me saying that Dupont owns all the rights - they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Oct 2014
33,166
6,071
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
No, that's not the case. More than one company owns a patent for the process to make R-134a.

http://www.igsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Patents-Factsheet-1.pdf

Page 6.

Please don't come back at me saying that Dupont owns all the rights - they don't.
Why would I? You've been doing quite well at proving my point. Though I don't expect you'll recognize or accept that you have even if I were to spell it out for you.

I thought I was satisfied with your concessions, but now you're going into overtime proving me right while claiming I'm wrong.
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,758
12,526
Mustafa
Lie. You said :


That was directed to me, nobody else that I've seen, maybe I missed the post where you called OTHER PEOPLE on the same... not as a veiled means to cover for your inability to address the argument/



that was also to attack me, NOT as a discussion to the topic.



This makes no sense.

I'm not getting bogged down in one of your fights. If you don't like my observations, then don't respond to me. It's that simple, for I have no interest in your content or opinions in any form.