CHOKE on this!
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> "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. :-)
>
Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because the
OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread drifted
somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you that has
been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to TROLL. Please
desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than
either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
Wipe yourself on the way out.
Huw
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "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. :-)
>
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted
> about exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask
> this because the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but
> the thread drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen
> one post from you that has been on topic. So why comment and
> criticise at all except to TROLL. Please desist immediately dear
> Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than either diesel
> exhaust or cigarette smoke.
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw
The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he!
--
~Philip.
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "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. :-)
>
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted
> about exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask
> this because the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but
> the thread drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen
> one post from you that has been on topic. So why comment and
> criticise at all except to TROLL. Please desist immediately dear
> Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than either diesel
> exhaust or cigarette smoke.
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw
The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he!
--
~Philip.
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "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. :-)
>
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted
> about exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask
> this because the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but
> the thread drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen
> one post from you that has been on topic. So why comment and
> criticise at all except to TROLL. Please desist immediately dear
> Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than either diesel
> exhaust or cigarette smoke.
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw
The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he!
--
~Philip.
> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
> news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>> "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. :-)
>
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted
> about exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask
> this because the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but
> the thread drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen
> one post from you that has been on topic. So why comment and
> criticise at all except to TROLL. Please desist immediately dear
> Arsehole, because you do tend to stink worse than either diesel
> exhaust or cigarette smoke.
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw
The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he!
--
~Philip.
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "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
>
>
Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is something else.
> "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
>
>
Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is something else.
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "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
>
>
Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is something else.
> "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
>
>
Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is something else.
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Marvin wrote:
> Huw wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> something else.
Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
feet?
--
~Philip.
> Huw wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> something else.
Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
feet?
--
~Philip.
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Marvin wrote:
> Huw wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> something else.
Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
feet?
--
~Philip.
> Huw wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> Directly inhaled, I agree. But second-hand tobacco smoke is
> something else.
Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
feet?
--
~Philip.
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Huw" < hedydd@tiscali.co.uk > wrote in message
news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You can
always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that someone
British (the keepers of the English language) would post such gutteral
language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England has its
ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can still smell
the stench. ;-)
news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You can
always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that someone
British (the keepers of the English language) would post such gutteral
language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England has its
ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can still smell
the stench. ;-)
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Huw" < hedydd@tiscali.co.uk > wrote in message
news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You can
always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that someone
British (the keepers of the English language) would post such gutteral
language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England has its
ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can still smell
the stench. ;-)
news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>
> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>
> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You can
always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that someone
British (the keepers of the English language) would post such gutteral
language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England has its
ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can still smell
the stench. ;-)
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> Marvin wrote:
> > Huw wrote:
> >>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much
> >>>> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight
> >>>> the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated
> >>>> until now by millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but
> >>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
> >>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
> >>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
> >>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or other
substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust, making it
potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that particulate matter is the
only polution worth considering is a bit narrow minded, but the data is
probably accurate as presented. You just have to look past it to get the
whole story.
-Russ.
#251
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> Marvin wrote:
> > Huw wrote:
> >>>> 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
>
> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust at 10
> feet?
It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or other
substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust, making it
potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that particulate matter is the
only polution worth considering is a bit narrow minded, but the data is
probably accurate as presented. You just have to look past it to get the
whole story.
-Russ.
#252
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Somebody wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>>> socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or
> other substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust,
> making it potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that
> particulate matter is the only polution worth considering is a bit
> narrow minded, but the data is probably accurate as presented. You
> just have to look past it to get the whole story.
>
> -Russ.
CO (carbon monoxide) is quite present in cig smoke. CO is quite present in
pre-catalyst gasoline exhaust but nearly non existant in diesel exhaust.
--
~Philip.
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or
> other substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust,
> making it potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that
> particulate matter is the only polution worth considering is a bit
> narrow minded, but the data is probably accurate as presented. You
> just have to look past it to get the whole story.
>
> -Russ.
CO (carbon monoxide) is quite present in cig smoke. CO is quite present in
pre-catalyst gasoline exhaust but nearly non existant in diesel exhaust.
--
~Philip.
#253
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CHOKE on this!
Somebody wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so
>>>>>> much relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't
>>>>>> highlight the well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit
>>>>>> tolerated until now by millions of non smokers whenever they
>>>>>> socialise, but
>>>>>> it highlights the absurd negative press about particulates
>>>>>> directed by pressure groups against diesel engined cars.
>>>>>> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create
>>>>>> as much particulate pollution as a single cigarette.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huw
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or
> other substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust,
> making it potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that
> particulate matter is the only polution worth considering is a bit
> narrow minded, but the data is probably accurate as presented. You
> just have to look past it to get the whole story.
>
> -Russ.
CO (carbon monoxide) is quite present in cig smoke. CO is quite present in
pre-catalyst gasoline exhaust but nearly non existant in diesel exhaust.
--
~Philip.
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:t8UDd.740$C52.145@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> Huw wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Second-hand smoke is the same thing only diluted. ;-) So are you
>> comparing second-hand smoke at 10 feet with a new diesel car exhaust
>> at 10 feet?
>
> It compared particulate matter. It didn't compare carcinogens, or
> other substances such as CO that are present in diesel exhaust,
> making it potentially fatal in moderate doses. To say that
> particulate matter is the only polution worth considering is a bit
> narrow minded, but the data is probably accurate as presented. You
> just have to look past it to get the whole story.
>
> -Russ.
CO (carbon monoxide) is quite present in cig smoke. CO is quite present in
pre-catalyst gasoline exhaust but nearly non existant in diesel exhaust.
--
~Philip.
#254
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:RIydnSCaj8cXkn3cRVn-3g@rogers.com...
> "Huw" < hedydd@tiscali.co.uk > wrote in message
> news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
>> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
>> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
>> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
>> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
>> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
>> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
>> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>>
>> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>>
>> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
>
> Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You
> can always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that
> someone British (the keepers of the English language) would post such
> gutteral language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England
> has its ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can
> still smell the stench. ;-)
>
Dear Arsehole. Pot, kettle, black. You'll have to do better than that. And
yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of
our mother tongue. You, on the other hand, are just a bore. A festering
stinking, puke inducing one at that. Far worse than diesel exhaust. [just to
keep on-topic].
Huw
#255
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message
news:RIydnSCaj8cXkn3cRVn-3g@rogers.com...
> "Huw" < hedydd@tiscali.co.uk > wrote in message
> news:34a0udF46g1spU2@individual.net...
>> Arsehole [may I call you Arsehole?], what exactly have you posted about
>> exhaust pollution from diesel exhaust in this string? I ask this because
>> the OP had a comparison of this with cigarette smoke but the thread
>> drifted somewhat to one side. Thing is, I have not seen one post from you
>> that has been on topic. So why comment and criticise at all except to
>> TROLL. Please desist immediately dear Arsehole, because you do tend to
>> stink worse than either diesel exhaust or cigarette smoke.
>>
>> Wipe yourself on the way out.
>>
>> Huw hedydd@tiscali.co.uk.
>
> Phew, (May I call you Phew?) you remind us all of that old saying: "You
> can always tell an Englishman . . . but not much!" It is ironic that
> someone British (the keepers of the English language) would post such
> gutteral language in a public NG. We tend to forget that even ole England
> has its ghettos. Crawl back under your slime covered rock. Phew! I can
> still smell the stench. ;-)
>
Dear Arsehole. Pot, kettle, black. You'll have to do better than that. And
yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of
our mother tongue. You, on the other hand, are just a bore. A festering
stinking, puke inducing one at that. Far worse than diesel exhaust. [just to
keep on-topic].
Huw