CHOKE on this!
#211
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:QsqdnRcgppvQiELcRVn-ow@rogers.com...
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> foolishly wrote in
message
> news:KMmdnRvHXKx5jkLcRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> > That would depend on your state's laws. I found AZ too smoky for my
> > likings.
>
> Whew! That's quite a statement Hag! (May I call you Hag?) AZ is a pretty
big
> state! You're not generalizing are you? Couldn't find a single smokefree
> spot in the state! Let me tell you Hag, your opinion is really important
to
> us all now. You really have our attention.
>
If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
smoky for my likings.
I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to be
the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
what I said.
If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are generalizing
to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
everybody is like you.
#212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VvKdnSaF6LdbikLcRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
> At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow
> off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators
> tend to be intolerant of posts that are off-topic or in some cases that do
> not address the topic appropriately. For example, they may reject a post
> that merely says, "What sort of zipzap should I buy?" They will say that
> a
> proper post should list the qualities one expects from a zipzap, etc.
>
> Of course, the same moderators will accept off topic posts from regulars,
> but that's another story.
>
> Now can we get back to the topic of smoking?
>
LMAO!!! Good one Hag!
#213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VvKdnSaF6LdbikLcRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
> At the risk of getting off topic, there are some groups that do not allow
> off topic posts, as stated in their FAQ. Some are moderated. Moderators
> tend to be intolerant of posts that are off-topic or in some cases that do
> not address the topic appropriately. For example, they may reject a post
> that merely says, "What sort of zipzap should I buy?" They will say that
> a
> proper post should list the qualities one expects from a zipzap, etc.
>
> Of course, the same moderators will accept off topic posts from regulars,
> but that's another story.
>
> Now can we get back to the topic of smoking?
>
LMAO!!! Good one Hag!
#214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348jo5F46hrb3U1@individual.net...
> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas*
> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you
> care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to
> any of these other NGs anyway)
>
> Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf
It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette
smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are
easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you
so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to
frienlier environs.
If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why
don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only
ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the
non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss
you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your
hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-)
news:348jo5F46hrb3U1@individual.net...
> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas*
> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you
> care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to
> any of these other NGs anyway)
>
> Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf
It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette
smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are
easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you
so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to
frienlier environs.
If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why
don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only
ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the
non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss
you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your
hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-)
#215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:348jo5F46hrb3U1@individual.net...
> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas*
> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you
> care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to
> any of these other NGs anyway)
>
> Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf
It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette
smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are
easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you
so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to
frienlier environs.
If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why
don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only
ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the
non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss
you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your
hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-)
news:348jo5F46hrb3U1@individual.net...
> *ducking back into the cross-post to answer Hagrinas*
> I'm only posting on this subject to the alt.auto.toyota now, so if you
> care to discuss it further, that's where I'll be (I'm not subscribed to
> any of these other NGs anyway)
>
> Natalie, ducking out to go back to her home turf
It's easy to see why you, Hag and Brad were off on a tangent about cigarette
smoke in an automotive NewsGroup. We seem to have just proven that you are
easily thrown off topic. It's like an illness Nat. I threw the three of you
so far off your OT discussion that you became frustrated and bailed to
frienlier environs.
If I may offer some friendly advice, Nat, have you not heard of e-mail? Why
don't you, Hag and Brad simply e-mail each other, since you are the only
ones interested in this topic? Duh@Nat! Or start a new NG devoted to the
non-smoking bandwagon. Then you can hovel in your element. I'm gonna miss
you though Nat. Call me crazy, but I was enjoying experiencing your
hyperventilation! Now Nat, take a deep breath and relax. :-)
#216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:go-dnQDcZLbIh0LcRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
> If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
> smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
> level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
> had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
> smoky for my likings.
>
> I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
> it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to
> be
> the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
> what I said.
>
> If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
> for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are
> generalizing
> to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
> everybody is like you.
Like I said, Arizona is a big state Hag. What else is there to say?
news:go-dnQDcZLbIh0LcRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
> If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
> smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
> level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
> had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
> smoky for my likings.
>
> I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
> it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to
> be
> the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
> what I said.
>
> If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
> for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are
> generalizing
> to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
> everybody is like you.
Like I said, Arizona is a big state Hag. What else is there to say?
#217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:go-dnQDcZLbIh0LcRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
> If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
> smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
> level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
> had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
> smoky for my likings.
>
> I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
> it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to
> be
> the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
> what I said.
>
> If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
> for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are
> generalizing
> to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
> everybody is like you.
Like I said, Arizona is a big state Hag. What else is there to say?
news:go-dnQDcZLbIh0LcRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
> If I lived there, I would *not* be cruising the whole state looking for a
> smoke-free spot. I was working in Phoenix regularly, and found the same
> level of discomfort in almost every restaurant I went to. If I would have
> had to have limited myself to certain places, that would have made it to
> smoky for my likings.
>
> I did not generalize one bit. I talked about my likings, and not whether
> it's too smoky for anybody else, or right for anybody else. You seem to
> be
> the one who is generalizing here by applying my comments to anything but
> what I said.
>
> If you can give a drop of evidence to show that I didn't find it too smoky
> for my likings, then by all means chime in. Or perhaps you are
> generalizing
> to the point that you think that everybody's tastes are like yours or that
> everybody is like you.
Like I said, Arizona is a big state Hag. What else is there to say?
#218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the
> topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary
> wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around
> the web since the early '90's.
>
> It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> great :^)
>
Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . .
doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem
confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to
respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad?
news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the
> topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary
> wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around
> the web since the early '90's.
>
> It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> great :^)
>
Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . .
doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem
confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to
respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad?
#219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the
> topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary
> wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around
> the web since the early '90's.
>
> It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> great :^)
>
Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . .
doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem
confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to
respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad?
news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep the
> topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an extraordinary
> wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced around
> the web since the early '90's.
>
> It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> great :^)
>
Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."? Hmmmmm, . . .
doesn't that make you guilty of doing what you profess to dislike? You seem
confused Brad. You seem to have taken an extraordinary length of time to
respond to that last message. Are your meds kicking in dear? R U okay Brad?
#220
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> > Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep
the
> > topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an
extraordinary
> > wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced
around
> > the web since the early '90's.
> >
> > It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> > great :^)
> >
>
> Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
> example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
> that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."?
Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
"StingRay"? ha ha ha!
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> > Actually, this guy thinks he's droll. There is no real effort to keep
the
> > topic on thread....he appears to believe he is exercising an
extraordinary
> > wit. Instead we get the same tired usenet insults that have bounced
around
> > the web since the early '90's.
> >
> > It's the old lollipop at the gunfight syndrone, and he thinks he's doing
> > great :^)
> >
>
> Brad, (May I call you Brad?) is that "lollipop at the gunfight" cliche an
> example of what you mean when you mention "the same tired usenet insults
> that have bounced around the web since the early '90's."?
Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
"StingRay"? ha ha ha!
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking,
>>>>>> because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>>>>>> influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>> socialise, but it highlights the absurd negative press about
>>>>> particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel engined
>>>>> cars. It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>> create
>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>> Huw
>>
>>
>> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern
>> diesel cars
>> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette".
>> Based on what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or
>> whatever is a cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not
>> arguing, just asking for clarification on something that sounds
>> quite extraordinary.
>
> Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in
> cheek on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face
> value. Draw your own conclusion from the article.
>
> Huw
WE NEED a Federal government funded study! The test vehicle(s) must be of
the latest diesel technology, the purest of European pump fuels (and of
course we must have a parallel biodiesel fuel study), and we must cull from
the Death Row prison population some extra worthy shreds of human debris to
smoke both cigarette and diesel exhausts. We can then hack out their lungs
on the cafeteria counter, thereby reducing study costs.
--
~Philip.
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking,
>>>>>> because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>>>>>> influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>> socialise, but it highlights the absurd negative press about
>>>>> particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel engined
>>>>> cars. It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>> create
>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>> Huw
>>
>>
>> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern
>> diesel cars
>> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette".
>> Based on what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or
>> whatever is a cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not
>> arguing, just asking for clarification on something that sounds
>> quite extraordinary.
>
> Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in
> cheek on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face
> value. Draw your own conclusion from the article.
>
> Huw
WE NEED a Federal government funded study! The test vehicle(s) must be of
the latest diesel technology, the purest of European pump fuels (and of
course we must have a parallel biodiesel fuel study), and we must cull from
the Death Row prison population some extra worthy shreds of human debris to
smoke both cigarette and diesel exhausts. We can then hack out their lungs
on the cafeteria counter, thereby reducing study costs.
--
~Philip.
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking,
>>>>>> because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>>>>>> influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>> socialise, but it highlights the absurd negative press about
>>>>> particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel engined
>>>>> cars. It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>> create
>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>> Huw
>>
>>
>> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern
>> diesel cars
>> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette".
>> Based on what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or
>> whatever is a cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not
>> arguing, just asking for clarification on something that sounds
>> quite extraordinary.
>
> Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in
> cheek on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face
> value. Draw your own conclusion from the article.
>
> Huw
WE NEED a Federal government funded study! The test vehicle(s) must be of
the latest diesel technology, the purest of European pump fuels (and of
course we must have a parallel biodiesel fuel study), and we must cull from
the Death Row prison population some extra worthy shreds of human debris to
smoke both cigarette and diesel exhausts. We can then hack out their lungs
on the cafeteria counter, thereby reducing study costs.
--
~Philip.
> "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
> news5EDd.46$Y86.2565@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:348833F468eg0U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that
>>>>>> cigarettes have very dire consequences on ones health. Creating
>>>>>> yet another study proving that won't help. Educating adolescents
>>>>>> is the only solution to smoking,
>>>>>> because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other
>>>>>> influences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>> socialise, but it highlights the absurd negative press about
>>>>> particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel engined
>>>>> cars. It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to
>>>>> create
>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huw
>>>> But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with
>>>> highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>> And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
>>> Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(
>>>
>>> Huw
>>
>>
>> I am interested in your comment that it "takes about 3.5 modern
>> diesel cars
>> to create as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette".
>> Based on what duration of runtime or miles or gallons of fuel or
>> whatever is a cigarette worse than 3.5 diesel automobiles? I'm not
>> arguing, just asking for clarification on something that sounds
>> quite extraordinary.
>
> Oh man! What the hell do I know. I am just commenting with tongue in
> cheek on the article posted by Philip. I don't really take it at face
> value. Draw your own conclusion from the article.
>
> Huw
WE NEED a Federal government funded study! The test vehicle(s) must be of
the latest diesel technology, the purest of European pump fuels (and of
course we must have a parallel biodiesel fuel study), and we must cull from
the Death Row prison population some extra worthy shreds of human debris to
smoke both cigarette and diesel exhausts. We can then hack out their lungs
on the cafeteria counter, thereby reducing study costs.
--
~Philip.
#224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Mentally Challenged Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> whined in message
news:soFDd.89$Y86.3670@news.uswest.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
>> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
>> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
> single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
> ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha!
>
> You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
> "StingRay"? ha ha ha!
>
Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in
the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"?
If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people
in this world....are you"?
We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by
opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go
Brad!!!
news:soFDd.89$Y86.3670@news.uswest.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
>> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
>> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
> single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
> ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha!
>
> You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
> "StingRay"? ha ha ha!
>
Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in
the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"?
If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people
in this world....are you"?
We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by
opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go
Brad!!!
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Bradburn Mentally Challenged Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> whined in message
news:soFDd.89$Y86.3670@news.uswest.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
>> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
>> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
> single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
> ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha!
>
> You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
> "StingRay"? ha ha ha!
>
Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in
the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"?
If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people
in this world....are you"?
We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by
opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go
Brad!!!
news:soFDd.89$Y86.3670@news.uswest.net...
>
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:8-GdnZ2kJvKHgkLcRVn-vw@rogers.com...
>> "Bradburn meds=kicking-in Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
>> news:7TEDd.52$Y86.3152@news.uswest.net...
> Of course not, dumbass, and if you disagree then feel free to offer one
> single cite showing that phrase used on Usenet more than once in the last
> ten years. By the way, that "once" would be today :^)
I'll get right on that Brad! Ha, Ha!
>
> You're not one of the more astute people in this world....are you
> "StingRay"? ha ha ha!
>
Brad, do you not see the irony in you calling someone else "dumbass" when in
the same sentence you say "cite", when clearly, the proper word is "site"?
If I may quote the village idiot: "You're not one of the more astute people
in this world....are you"?
We'll let the group decide just who the dumbass is, but I think that by
opening your mouth, you have just removed all doubt! Still LMAO!!! Way to go
Brad!!!