rangerx

12 hours ago, dcy1939 said:

I used the semiconductor process method to prove this technology direction, and found that the black sapphire turned blue.. See photos. But the analysis temperature needs to be further increased. This method is simple, low-cost, and does not damage the crystal structure, and does not affect the natural defects of the gemstone, such as cracks, tiny bubbles, etc., so it cannot detect artificial traces, so it does not reduce the "natural" nature of the gemstone. Can add value.
 

"See photos" tells us nothing. We need to see the methodology. What was this semiconductor process? We do not know the grade of the untreated sapphire or it's control specimens. We do not know the apparatus used, the method of containment nor the pressure/temperature/duration. How about some gemological data on the finished product that actually alludes to the value add"?

Photoshop fails the smell test.

If I were you, I'd start there and disclose some real time data, before expecting anyone with a substantial inventory to stumble over themselves, no less ship to an anonymous client.
 

12 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think it is common practice to heat treat sapphires to enhance the color.

Correct.

Natural blues are heated in the ground. Black in subsequent events.

Besides that, black have higher value than the blue when they have good clarity or/or stars. And we all know what they mean by the saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"

Polishing a turd does not always mean added value. The opposite can be true too.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

+1 not picking sides, but for the post

Thank you, JC. Sides doesn't matter among friends, so long as things are civil.

I come across as hostile sometimes, but it's more from a place of frustration rather than anything. I only revealed this because I'd hope you'd gather my position that things like Pelosi filing a month late rings hollow and does nothing to address the underlying issue.

That being our allies are shot out of the skies, displaced from their homes or otherwise detained while democracy is falling to oligarchs.

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    

why do you care?

Because I am a Canadian and Ukraine is our ally. It matters to me and my countrymen that our allies contribute to war efforts and humanitarian aid in a timely and lawful manner.

And I am half Ukrainian. Crimea to be precise. Despite decades and centuries of oppression and violence, the Cossacks (Khazak - loosely meaning "free men, adventurers having the right to travel and associate" and albeit peculiar, it was the only democracy in the region.

Ukraine had been meddled by Poland, Sweden ( yeah, Sweden) and Russia, annexed by Austria and occupied by Russia. In WW1, my grandfather had the option fighting for the axis or death by firing squad. He was captured by the allies and released soon thereafter, because he inherently supported democracy. He sneaked back into Ukraine, rounded up the woman he loved and her daughter (who was not his blood) and escaped to the west.

That girl was my grandmother. We lost people then and we are missing people now.

But why do you care?


 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

how is that different?

Because zap didn't meddle in a foreign country with quid pro quo to interfere with an election, but his countrymen did.

1 hour ago, LaurieAG said:

So democracy won, that should surprise nobody.

I'm sure Ukraine would beg to differ.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Who in the hell do you think you are to judge me?

Analogies seem to be lost on you. That's not for me to judge, but for you to present.

I didn't make this about you, I made this about your countrymen. You made it about you.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Correct. Care to tell me how I share responsibility for Trump being acquitted?

Try taking out the ear plugs when you speak to others.

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It must be getting late. I don't know what you are trying to say.

The bed - sleep analogy.

Despite noise laws on the books, your country has allowed drummers to bang away all night. Now, the only alternative available to you is earplugs.

You've clearly absolved yourself from any part of that, after all you're not a senator, right.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

As I'm not a US Senator I don't really feel I should take the hit for this one.

Rightly so, but I hope you're okay with the new drum set your neighbor bought.

I suppose you could just buy earplugs and let everyone else face music.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s now over. He’s been acquitted.

America made it's bed, now it has to sleep in it.

Mitt Romney just gave notice he will vote to convict Trump.

His speech was articulate and from an honest place, as an American not a Republican first.

Little do conservatives realize they've been bilked by a corrupt liberal.

I ask flat earthers what part of the Keplerian Elements (orbital parameters) they don't understand.

When they respond with "huh?", I have my answer.

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. And in this particular instance of insulting the jury...there is no Republican equivalent (but give Trump time...)

 

 Presidents through history have done more than what Trump was actually impeached for as per the known facts. I realize that opinion is a minority one here.

 

 He's a piece of work. That doesn't justify overstating it, or making claims of certainty of facts without proof.

Dems overstating there case undermines their case. Nothing I say changes that.

Similarly, Trump's claim that the phone call was "perfect" undermines his case, at least to any reasonable person. (but note that Republicans, generally speaking, aren't repeating this absurdity)

Having said that...I realize a small degree of overstating works...too bad the Dems can't stick to that and roll over Trump, rather than slip and risk getting rolled over.

 

 

Again, your equivalence is in the gutter and responses obtuse.

The Republicans insult the constitution, yet you've equated that with a perceived insult to the jury. Snowflake and absurd.

Presidents in history is your interpretation, not historical fact even if it were true, there's a hundred reasons impeachment wasn't brought. Mainly the balance of power. Me avoiding a speeding ticket years ago does not automatically mean you don't get a speeding ticket for being caught doing 60 in a 30 zone.

Without proof? Trump ADMITS making the call. The evidence is overwhelming. It's the Republican's claim that's contrived and bogus.

Overstating what? if anything, it's understated. Oh, maybe one aspect or sentence was overstated, but that certainly is not any ground for dismissal.

Thanks for alluding to my statement about grasping at straws.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I realize this is politics and to some degree can't be helped but it's gone overboard and it's divisive. And it's not just Trump. Or Republicans.

Sometimes one side is worse than the other. Calling out one side doesn't mean the other is beyond reproach.

Reproach is one thing, equivalence is something yet again.

I didn't hear any Dems claiming this is a hoax, attacking the procedure or the institutions bringing it. No advocating to bring a partisan result irrespective of the oaths taken.

In practically every breath, Trump slurs derogatory names, lies through his teeth and turns a blind eye to corruption, nepotism, malfeasance and threats.

Being quick to admonish Dems for things said as though it undermines the case against Trump, is grasping at straws and little else.

8 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

My opinion is there is a 50% chance 4 GOP senators will want more witnesses and documents.  IF that happens, then the hearings get stretched out beyond the State of the Union address.  Dems would like to run out the clock.   That will look bad for Trump.  There could always be a tipping point before election day, like what happened to Nixon.

If at the end of the day, there are only 4 GOP senators, then 49 other senators have no interest in upholding democracy, but for authoritarianism and little else.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The only difference between the Senate driving and the House driving is the party who controls it.

True, but the equivalence is worlds apart.

The Dems got a parking ticket. The GOP are reckless driving for vehicular manslaughter.

So yes, it true. The GOP is in control. 

That means ending this one of two ways. Pedal to the metal ferguson style, or pulling over until they sober up.

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Pelosi resisted calls for impeachment for over 2 years, and only reluctantly decided to proceed when the evidence came out that he was trying to extort foreign nations to cheat in the upcoming election. Perhaps you define "rushed" differently than I do?

To use the car analogy (sorry to revisit that) It takes time to decide what car you want. Once you have the money in the bank it might be prudent to hasten the sale if you think your spouse might otherwise spend it on something else. After ownership is taken, it's not up to the seller to expect it be driven immediately or later lest it defaults to the previous owner.

It's none of their business, irrespective of the buyer changing their mind when they intent to use it after the fact.

In the case of articles of impeachment, there are no limitations on the House as to delivery, despite whatever talking point that gets kicked around. It's merely implied under the guise of something else in the absence of actual fact issues at bar.

But I'm sure you already know that. I'm just speaking broadly about those who desperately grasp at that straw.

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

N Pelosi was had.
M McConnel finally promised a hearing in the Senate that seemed reasonable, so she handed over the articles of Impeachment.
At which point M McConnel reneged of the promise, and only wants to present arguments that the Impeachment process was a sham.
IOW just repeating the process Congress just went through, and hoping ( guaranteeing actually ) a different outcome.

Then they can claim D Trump was not Impeached, taking advantage of the fact that most of the American population doesn't realize that he IS Impeached already, and they can deny the whole thing at election time.

Sad, but true. Now it's an exercise bathing republican senators in their own hypocrisy before the election, which is about all anyone could ask for under the circumstances.

I can't believe (actually I can) that Moscow Mitch had the audacity and gumption to ask the Dems to "stack" these amendments.

Shiff poured Mitch a nice big cup of go fuck yourself. I'm sure Mitch will sarcastically pour it over Shiff's head later , but at least the voters will have had their spectacle.

Aren't you glad MigL, that we never strayed from the parliamentary system in protest?

We don't need the guns and we don't need the bullshit and every day I thank my lucky stars I'm not American.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Point being...maybe she shouldn't have rushed into the purchase.

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

Are you suggesting just because it was hastily purchased, they lost ownership merely because they didn't drive it right away?

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They never did trust "Trump's Auto Sales", but they needed a car immediately. Who would have thought a month later when they picked it up that maybe they should have read the smallprint?

What is the statute of limitation?

There is none. What's your point?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive. 

More like picking one car, then saying you can't have that car, instead the one they pick for you, without the test drive.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Who the hell knows. We’re in uncharted territories and the senate majority leader is breaking every precedent he can. 

Yeah that, but in a normal world, I'd expect with witness called, rebuttal first, then closing arguments once rebuttal phase is completed.

That's presuming the GOP doesn't pose legal challenges to SCOTUS.

Never underestimate Moscow Mitch's penchant for obstructionism or going to a court that's in the tank for him.

The Dems are doing a very good job articulating the case. Very matter of fact and clearly laid out in point form under a concise timeline.

The GOP... rhetoric, rancor, lies. Nothing they've presented at this point is grounded in anything reasonable or compelling, imo.

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Isn't that exactly how it was agreed in the Clinton impeachment? I don't know, but that's what I thought...

Maybe (I'm not certain), but Clinton didn't block witnesses who implicated or supported him, in fact he insisted upon their cooperation. By this time in the senate trial, Clinton was forthright and contrite and carried on the business of the country for the sake of the country. Can't say that about whatever you call that shell of a man in the office today.