Originally, that was a theoretical prediction about what happens when heated liquid undergoes rapid depressurization, as when a lid is removed from a cup. Since the boiling point of a liquid varies with air pressure, theoretically it is possible (depending on the actual boiling point of, in this case, a colloidal solution, the air pressure with the cap on, the air pressure with the cap off, and the speed of removal of the cap, none of which factors were capable of precise measurement at the time) that the cup could boil over with the removal of the cap.
And I pointed out that the physical constants needed to calculate the pressure differential are known and documented, and can be looked up. And when I provided those, you persisted in declaring that you were right, even though the conditions didn't allow for it to happen. The pressure differential is on the order of the difference in air pressure between sea level and above the height of Mt. Everest (where breathing masks are required for most people). I think that pressure difference would be noticed, even without "precise measurements". "Theoretical predictions" were not your claim - you stated flat out that the coffee "boiled over" when she removed the lid, and I stated it was not possible and why. You persisted in claiming the coffee boiled over, to the point of implying that I was lying. I've even calculated the pressure that the cup would be under - about 88 lbs (40 kgs). All you have to do to prove that your scenario is correct is find a standard styrofoam coffee cup that will support that weight. I'm still waiting.
It turns out that a small percentage of RAF bombing raids at the beginning of the war were daylight raids. When I produced the entire operational log of the RAF operations during WWII to prove that your father's claim to have had his school in Austria bombed during a daylight RAF raid had to be bullshit, you had no real answer.
Actually I did. You might remember that I pointed out that bombing raids have secondary targets along their route. And the routes for the primary targets in the documentation that you provided would, in some cases, be over the town my father lived in. And this town contained a steel mill, so it's highly likely that the town would have been designated as a "secondary target" - which your provided documentation does not provide information on. In addition, RAF nighttime raids would sometimes have the bombers returning in the morning. Secondary targets were hit by bombers that were damaged and had to return early, or by returning bombers that had, for some reason, not loosed all of their ordinance on the primary target. Standard bombing operations shows that you're wrong and it is possible for my father's town to have been hit by the RAF, but you won't hear of it - you're right, and everything to the contrary must be automatically wrong.
Castro didn't use torture. Tad Szulc's biography of Fidel refers to an incident where he appears to laugh at a Commandante using torture to extract confessions from a group of counterrevolutionary guerrillas after another Commandante had had to let them go for lack of evidence. Szulc claims he managed to convince Castro that this wasn't right and that seems to have been the end of it. While Cuban jails might leave something to be desired in terms of prisoner comfort, there's no credible evidence I'm aware of that Castro either practices or condones torture. Certainly nothing on the scale of Abu Ghraib, Baghram base, secret European torture centres maintained by the C.I.A. or other centres of U.S. torture and abuse.
I provided a transcript of testimony given at the UN about the use of torture by Castro's government. You said that it couldn't be believed because the people giving the testimony were dissidents. And scale was not the question, anyway.
Guess it's easy to be right when you don't believe anything that contradicts you.
