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, MigL said:

I think the gun related death rate in the US is an emergency.

In Canada there are no sides. Though some squawk this or that, we're all pretty much on the same page when it comes to gun laws.

If anything, the collective outrage toward the long gun registry caused it to be eliminated. It did more harm than good.

In America it seems it's more about individualism and entitlement than common sense and public safety.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So IOW your expertise is as a participant, in one narrow area of law.

Maritime and Admiralty law, the right to volunteer, the right to clean air and water, the right to seek compensation for injuries and loss of opportunity, the right to intervene in international incidents are scarcely one narrow area of the law. I'm certain you understand proving negligence is no small task, it's massive and burdensome.

Does it apply to gun laws? Not directly, but it might or could apply in under some circumstances but that's not the point I'm getting at either. My point being it's an underhanded tactic of dismissal from the discussion in the absence of facts and intellectual dishonesty, by presuming my knowledge is less than theirs or others. They are still attacking me personally. by suggesting I refuse to accept anything. Even going laying down conditions that whether I respond or not is contingent on my acceptance.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

That's objectionable, especially in light of the fact I've been introspective and admonished on points in the past. Take MigL, for example. Largely, we have polar opposite view points and I was unduly harsh. Once he articulated his view on gun control, did I realize there are no sides when it comes to gun control in Canada (only fringes, but certainly not across the board) and took back what I said about him in earlier discussions. Ten Oz objectively deconstructed my assertion on why I and others may believe why Trump was elected largely because of his lack of PC. On revisiting that, realized my point was rhetorical and took it back.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted.

That is also objectionable, as needlessly offensive. He is attacking me personally, not the points I make. I am critical of what he says, not who he is. It's not fair.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

So you're a lawyer?

No, but I've consulted with my lawyers and other pro se claimants during the case and with other lawyers and legislators about the case, subsequent to it's conclusion. I also sat on a royal commission by our government about this incident to apprise both legal and legislative authorities in this country about the proceedings and that no layperson such as myself should be caused to make this kind of representation on behalf of my county, in absence of our government or the assistance needed to undertake it. Being a representative in a class action lawsuit for an international incident (that originated in the USA) on my own dime is about as high level as it gets for just about anyone.

The assertion my knowledge doesn't exist or not entire is beside any point.

I understand this is a science forum and citations are necessary to support assertions. To dispel any doubt, I am willing to do so, but not publicly, because the case is my name v defendant and my home can be deduced by it, hence I have fears my life could be threatened. The case is public record and I will gladly post the links to you in PM, where you'll be able to match the name with the email address when I signed up for this forum.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted.

If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.

I doubt you are done and who in the hell are you to tell me I am too worried about anything? I will not stand for you insulting my intelligence on any level.

Refusing to accept anything? Another blatant lie.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it.

There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay.

 

 

Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state. 

You're just talking in circles about something has nothing to do with anything I've suggested.

And just who knows "entirely". Even the most learned judge's knowledge isn't entire. Why does that standard only apply to me, if not for being singularly dismissive?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't think that's a fair assessment. The states can pass gun restrictions. The Supreme Court can rule them to be unconstitutional. I don't think there's anything controversial in that position.

That's not a fair assessment either. My comment (a suggestion and a question) were spun into something else entirely.

Raider raised the issue, speaking from the standpoint of corruption detracting gun safety laws by his state legislature by thwarting or straying from gun safety measures. He even went as far to suggest his state does it because "they believe the feds are corrupt". I suggested and asked if they agreed upon taking legal (no less social) measures to nip it in the bud, but responded as no, being solely reliant on SCOTUS to sort it out. To me, that read as maintaining the status quo, not pro-activity as they claim to be, because controversial laws can take years to resolve or may not be resolved at all and in the meantime, people may die.

I also prefixed the comment, that state and local police still make arrests and detain suspects, irrespective of which level of laws were broken. It's not as though anyone has to give up protection from law enforcement and It's not as though they turn a blind eye, in anticipation of maybe the feds figuring it out.

In opening their response, they had the audacity to insult my intelligence by suggesting I don't understand American law, thus perpetuating their pretense my opinion has no bearing in this or any discussion. Even going as far as claiming to have taken some so-called 9 month course, making them the legal authority in the this discussion. Subsequently, proven themselves as a wrongfully accusatory and needlessly hyberbolic.

I fought a long, acrimonious class action in an American court to infer negligence and maintain standing, not for the money. They tried every underhanded tactic and procedural obstacle they could present and spared no expense trying, yet I prevailed. That's considerably more experience with the American legal system than probably the greater part of this forum and certainly the average American would ever endure. Their assertion (not the only one on this board) that I am anti-American is patently false.

First you you said the states have the ability to place their own laws if they think the federal laws are corrupt. Then said the states can't because the supreme court will over-rule them.

Then I suggested and asked if you supported proactive measures to prevent your state from doing that in the first place. You responded with a no,  by putting reliance on the federal courts to correct it instead.

Meanwhile, kids die waiting for the status quo to be maintained, rather than dealing with the underpinnings of the problem. THAT is what I'M saying.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

 

And who said I downvoted your comment?

That's an outright lie and a personal attack.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion?

By your own admission to this thread, you've very clearly said your state government was complicit in thwarting federal laws. Corrupt was the exact word.

So invoking any measures (legal, moral, education or otherwise) to prevent your state legislatures from even attempting to thwart the law is off the table then?

You seem to be upholding the status quo, not a catalyst for change is how that reads.

That's not my opinion or what I said at all, quit putting words in my mouth.

I said DID (in the past tense) NOT DOES in the present and future. FFS.

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alright, then you should understand that if the State passes laws that contradict the federal government, the federal government overrules the state's regulations.

That what I said, FFS.

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

How does that suggest anything other than the feds over-ruling state laws when they are wrong? Arguing over something we agree on. For shame.

Quite obviously, your comment was driven by the narrow-mindedness that because I'm a Canadian I have no idea about your legal system, even as far as throwing the odd anti-American epithet (from the other thread) into the mix for no other than to disqualify me from the discussion.

This is a science forum, fallacies fall flat on this board.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Federal law is enforced by federal officials, e.g. the FBI or ATF

Of course.

I was suggesting local and state police still make arrests and detain offenders pending escalation to the feds for charges.

Not necessarily for ongoing investigations, but certainly in cases that rear themselves on the spot.

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works.

There's a 9-month course I took that went over it.

It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

Cut with the false narrative.

I understand the US legal system more than you think. I represented a class action against an oil company in the 9th Circuit and Appellate Court for more than 10 years.

And prevailed.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I know, if the supreme court orders a state to do something, they have to do it. That hardly sounds like thwarting the federal laws.

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

Meanwhile people die.

So your state is corrupt, but that's acceptable, so long as the feds might step in later then?

Doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like maintaining the status quo.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt. 

You've identified a problem. Would you agree, that removing the states legislative ability to thwart federal laws on safety is a workable solution?

After all, the states still have the power to enforce and to charge for federal crimes in any case, not just guns.

I'm certain you an I'd agree Mexico isn't particularly well-regulated, which also serves to suggest numerous other underlying social-economic issues.

The same is also true in the USA. Mental health is a healthcare issue, which is also under siege. Likewise, the states often thwart federal laws.

Technically, everyone has a right to guns in any regulated country. The greater part of those who lost that right, did so by their own undoing not by the influence of politicians as many would have everyone believe.  Gun safety, not the right to them, should be at the forefront of federal legislation, while state laws should have the discretion to their usefulness by restricting other things in the public interest. Limiting rounds for hunting and conservation, for example.

The "sides" thing is too polarized, because it misses a broader point. In America, there basically two kinds of guns (or at least that's the way the narrative goes). Legal guns and banned guns. In Canada, there are three... legal guns, banned guns and restricted guns (semi-auto and hand guns). The latter requires strict licensing and affirmed accountability, irrespective of the purpose for owning them.

In countries with well-regulated gun laws, there are no "sides".

So long as that is a term of reference, any discussion or action will always be self-defeating.

Flies are attracted to Co2.