|
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > > The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! That's what comes of multiple crossposting off-topic stuff indiscriminately. At least there was some car content in it I suppose. Arsewipe has not mentioned any vehicle even once AFAICS. Huw |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > > The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! That's what comes of multiple crossposting off-topic stuff indiscriminately. At least there was some car content in it I suppose. Arsewipe has not mentioned any vehicle even once AFAICS. Huw |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > >> The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! > > That's what comes of multiple crossposting off-topic stuff > indiscriminately. At least there was some car content in it I > suppose. Arsewipe has not mentioned any vehicle even once AFAICS. > > Huw Hardly indiscriminant. That copy/paste header took several seconds to accomplish! LOL I just want to know if cigarette exhaust should be classified similar to biodiesel exhaust since they both orginate from plants. (staying marginally on topic) -- ~Philip. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote > >> The OP really set a provocative bit of bait, didn't he! > > That's what comes of multiple crossposting off-topic stuff > indiscriminately. At least there was some car content in it I > suppose. Arsewipe has not mentioned any vehicle even once AFAICS. > > Huw Hardly indiscriminant. That copy/paste header took several seconds to accomplish! LOL I just want to know if cigarette exhaust should be classified similar to biodiesel exhaust since they both orginate from plants. (staying marginally on topic) -- ~Philip. |
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7uWDd.825$C52.726@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net... > Somebody wrote: >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:t8UDd.740$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. > Absolutely correct and AFAIK diesel exhaust is no more carcinogenic than that proven to be in cigarette smoke. No arsenic either. In fact Peugeot have just launched a diesel range with effectively zero particulate emission. I have not heard of such a clean cigarette. Huw |
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7uWDd.825$C52.726@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net... > Somebody wrote: >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:t8UDd.740$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. > Absolutely correct and AFAIK diesel exhaust is no more carcinogenic than that proven to be in cigarette smoke. No arsenic either. In fact Peugeot have just launched a diesel range with effectively zero particulate emission. I have not heard of such a clean cigarette. Huw |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:18:24 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > ><snip> > >The only reliable way to stop smoking is not to start. > >Full_Name <Email@address.com> writes: > >> Using that stat posted in the article I think that it's high time >> that we get the good Diesels here in North America. Including the >> new 2005 GTi Turbo Diesel. Ban Fast food & use the cooking oil for >> the fast Turbo Diesel's. >> >> More sub 7 sec 0-60, 140+ MPH Diesels I say ! > >See: > >http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/ Thanks for the link. Now to find a way to import such a vehicle... |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:18:24 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > ><snip> > >The only reliable way to stop smoking is not to start. > >Full_Name <Email@address.com> writes: > >> Using that stat posted in the article I think that it's high time >> that we get the good Diesels here in North America. Including the >> new 2005 GTi Turbo Diesel. Ban Fast food & use the cooking oil for >> the fast Turbo Diesel's. >> >> More sub 7 sec 0-60, 140+ MPH Diesels I say ! > >See: > >http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/ Thanks for the link. Now to find a way to import such a vehicle... |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this! / More OT
What's the difference between a good nun and a bad nun?
A good nun says "Amen". A bad nun says "Ah...men!" DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:Dr2dncO8ufx1ckPcRVn-vA@rogers.com... [...] Amen. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this! / More OT
What's the difference between a good nun and a bad nun?
A good nun says "Amen". A bad nun says "Ah...men!" DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:Dr2dncO8ufx1ckPcRVn-vA@rogers.com... [...] Amen. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hovel in your element"?
"Revel"? DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com... [...] > Then you can hovel in your element. [...] |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hovel in your element"?
"Revel"? DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com... [...] > Then you can hovel in your element. [...] |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Just for my edification, Huw, are you actually English or Welsh? ... :-)
DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:34ar23F44qsa2U1@individual.net... > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message [...] >> >> 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 [...] > > yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of [...] > > Huw > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Just for my edification, Huw, are you actually English or Welsh? ... :-)
DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:34ar23F44qsa2U1@individual.net... > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message [...] >> >> 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 [...] > > yes, some of us Brits do have a certain artistic and colourful command of [...] > > Huw > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41e25c92$0$19166$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... > "Hovel in your element"? > > "Revel"? > > DAS > -- > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling > --- > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote in message > news:SrydnT3JGJv9gULcRVn-3Q@rogers.com... > [...] > > Then you can hovel in your element. Ah man, why give this goofball a clue.? A recent study showed that the people the least likely to recognize incompetence and stupidity are incompetent stupid ones. Think how much more enjoyable this knucklehead is when he thinks he's being witty, rather than understanding he's quite dimwitted. Geez....some people kill all the fun :^) |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands