I'm outta here...
----- Original Message -----
From: roni...@sbcglobal.net
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: CS>Fw: Chicago Tribune
The term electrically isolated (isolated from what?) silver (EIS) is vague
and ambiguous and really doesn't have a scientific meaning.
It could however have a meaning of one that uses too high of a current
rectifier value and creates particulate size to heavy to stay in suspension of
a fluid with respect to it's surface tension, falls to the bottom of the
vessel, thus "isolated".
The term EIS apparently was coined by companies to make home-brewers think
that their product was inferior to theirs, and fool them into buying it.
I hate to disappoint you, but if you make nanosize silver particles that stay
in suspension in a fluid such as distilled water, notwithstanding any ionic
content, by all definitions, it is a "Colloidal substance of Silver".
To say otherwise would fly in the face of a published article of a highly
respected research journal, from a 100 years ago.
Scientific American, Volume 78, Page 2 & 3 - 1914
Scientific American Supplement No. 2009 - July 4, 1914
On Metallic Colloids and Their Bactericidal Properties
It is your own admission that your a "black sheep", that doesn't follow the
flocks.
You seem to equate "black sheep" with intellect and a wide knowledge base.
You may be a black sheep, but unknowingly are at the end of the pack
(following) and trying to rename something that is not.
Grand canyon donkeys come to mind.
You sir, may have the last word...
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: CS>Fw: Chicago Tribune
Well for one, if any of those 'old CS researchers' so called have left it's
probly because what we make by the LVDC method in our kitchens is not 'CS' so
they would have had nothing to learn or contribute.
And two, if that article was worth reading I would not have to jump through
hoops or run an obstacle course to read it, it would be freely available, I can
readily read some other articles in that rag but not that one, why? Don't know
and don't care, so the road to give a hoot is............That way! <g>. I
doubt I would learn anything worthwhile in it anyway of which I couldn't learn
or haven't already learnt somewhere else with no hoops to jump through.
Remember, I'm the black sheep here, I don't follow flocks, only dead fish
go with the flow - LOL.
And if one's going to be lazy, they got to be good at it <g>.
And I've yet to find a 'researcher?' today that researches what we make?
Don't know about the FDA but our TGA certainly hasn't 'researched' it, our
TGA's response to my questions came from the Internet, how worthwhile or
intelligent or 'researched' is that? Quoting the same old regurgitated rubbish
and misleading BS referencing a product of which is NOT what we produce?
Did I mention something about 'confusing' people?
N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roni...@sbcglobal.net
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>Fw: Chicago Tribune
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:22:23 -0600
So, we have two members that leave lengthily comments about the article
-THAT NEVER READ IT.
Too lazy to enter a zip code and a password for a FREE membership to read
it.
No wonder all the old CS researchers have left this site...
