Oh yes, of course. I must have been doing higher math.
:-)
Ken
Introducing a new term to the language...
The "Sagan" : a unit of measurement indicating billions and billions and
billions.
At 11:35 AM 6/28/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I had been told that there really wan't any word for the many,
Sounds like me when there are "many" children around...!
- Original Message -
From: "Marshall Dudley"
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: CS>FOUND a generator for concentrated CS
> I had been told that there really wan't any word f
Marshall wrote:
> I agree with that statement.
>
> Marshall
There you have it Roger, we now have "many", so my statement stands "Many
researchers are convinced that very small particles (under 10 nm) in high
concentration is most desired."
frank key
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum
I had been told that there really wan't any word for the many, instead they
would
throw up their hands and have a helpless look on their faces once they got
beyond
3.
Marshall
Ode Coyote wrote:
> Isn't that "One, a couple, a few, several" then many?
>
> Nit picking math..
> er, one nit is tw
I agree with that statement.
Marshall
Frank Key wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>
> > Frank: I would appreciate it if you could cite the references that support
> > your statement, "Many researchers are convinced that very small particles
> > (under 10 nm) in high concentration is most desired." Thanks, R
That CS looks like sludge. If that's made in only 3 hours..can you say "runaway"?
guess it's a matter of 'how fast',huh.
He implies that he is "controlling" current when if you read what he says, he's only limiting it just like the other cheaper generators he puts down. What's that "special circu
Isn't that "One, a couple, a few, several" then many?
Nit picking math..
er, one nit is two-many :-)
How's that for an equation?
Ken
At 04:55 PM 6/27/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>
>> Frank: I would appreciate it if you could cite the references that support
>> your statement, "Many re
Good one Frank...
James-Osbourne: Holmes
-Original Message-
From: Frank Key [mailto:fr...@strsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:55 PM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>FOUND a generator for concentrated CS
Roger wrote:
> Frank: I would appreciate it if you coul
Roger wrote:
> Frank: I would appreciate it if you could cite the references that support
> your statement, "Many researchers are convinced that very small particles
> (under 10 nm) in high concentration is most desired." Thanks, Roger
In the aboriginal number systems, many comes after three (a
In a message dated 6/27/01 9:05:45 AM EST, fr...@strsoft.com writes:
<< Many researchers are convinced that very small particles (under 10 nm) in
high concentration is most desired.
You might ask the author what percentage of the 150 ppm is particles vs ions
and what the particle size is (if
e-mail e...@happyherbalist.com
-Original Message-
From: Allisons Apothecary [mailto:apothec...@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:29 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>FOUND a generator for concentrated CS
In my opinion, the particle size is going to be outrageous! Y
In my opinion, the particle size is going to be outrageous! You wouldn't be
able to pay me enough money to take that stuff internally. Even if you dilute
like he suggests, logic dictates that the particle size will remain the same.
yuck!
Yours in health,
James Allison
--
Reid Harvey wrote:
> Thanks to those who responded to my appeal. I've located what appears to
> be a good generator for concentrated CS, at the link:
> http://educate-yourself.org/cslargevolumeprodinfo.html
> This generator will make 150ppm CS, a material which we can apply to our
> water purifier
13 matches
Mail list logo
