Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Cartoon

R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
Cultures where spanking is rare produce kids that are no less screwed
up, IMHO.
Spehro Pefhany
----------------
And so your "humble opinion" makes your "guess" true??

That's nonsense, the societies that don't hit have MUCH lower
rates of crime and violence!

-Steve
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
------------
Those two things are the same. We have languished in every war that
we did not finally become grimly mercilous in prosecuting. Dresden,
Hiroshima/Nagasaki, those were turning points, we stoppped apologizing
for collateral damage and INTENDED to kill civilians, which is where
a nation's power resides.

This is extremely sick.

At least in those instances, the US didn't _start_ the bloody thing.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
------------------
Liar. I've told you what you have a right to do, to own a home,
now, this instant, to be paid absolutely equally per hour for
any and all democratically sanctioned work, to work more to
earn more, to build your castle as you please, to receive free
medical and vacation and retirement.
Yeah, OK.

In the Empire of Walz, Everyone Has The Right To Do What
Our God, Steve, Says.

Fuuuuuck you!
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
Terry said:
Clarence wrote:


message



R. Steve Walz wrote:

[snip]



Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with

your


own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.

Welcome to the club.



I didn't reply because it got too personal.
There was the arrogance of my stepfather
facing me with the same line, "I have the right"

Understandable. RSW seems to fly right off the handle at the slightest
provocation.

guess ya missed the words "seems to"
? Didja see his assertion that one slap from his father would

and genes, and environment (diet, chemical exposure etc. especially
in-utero)

And don't forget us second-hand smokers! We kill a billiogajillion
people an hour!

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
And I imagine the time I stopped at a gas station and ended up repairing
a girls alternator (an hour in the dark and pissing rain) because she
had broken down would likewise offend you.

Ah, heck, that's nothin'! I once stopped at a stalled car on the freeway
and pushed it out of the traffic lane with my bare hands, un-jamming
hundreds, maybe thousands of cars!

It felt good! :-D

(southern California, LA area - I-10 near the I-5 interchange)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
-------------------
Me, non-violent? No, I merely aim it at appropriate targets only,
namely EvilDoers!


-----------------------
Whoever started it gets imprisoned at labor indefinitely.

Kids are apprised of this, and that they should only fight
BACK to escape the harshness of the law!
What if that's exactly what the 18-year old was doing? The
17-11/12-year-old has 3 inches and 60 pounds on him, and
started the fight with a sucker punch.

Now, what's the sentence?

Thanks,
Rich
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, just observation and interpretation. I have not made a formal
study of it, like most parents, I'm an amateur.
That's nonsense, the societies that don't hit have MUCH lower
rates of crime and violence!

-Steve

Do you know the things they whisper into kids ears in Asian cultures
to discipline them?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
Yeah, OK.

In the Empire of Walz, Everyone Has The Right To Do What
Our God, Steve, Says.

Fuuuuuck you!
-----------------
Lessee, just living an honest life, gee, I wouldn't care if you were
a circus geek if it was Democratically contracted. I'm sure some of
us will want to see it, just like other hobbies. You don't seem to
realize that what I promote doesn't stand in the way of anything
except doing it dishonestly in some effort to try to enslave others
by trying to make them do your work FOR you. That's what's criminal.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
What if that's exactly what the 18-year old was doing? The
17-11/12-year-old has 3 inches and 60 pounds on him, and
started the fight with a sucker punch.

Now, what's the sentence?

Thanks,
Rich
--------------
Even if he;s 12, first one who hits goes to prison at labor.
We don't need these loose nuts around unchained.

Put him to work, let him have some fun in his off time,
but chained, with a keeper. Or cripple him and give
him sit-down work.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
No, just observation and interpretation. I have not made a formal
study of it, like most parents, I'm an amateur.


Do you know the things they whisper into kids ears in Asian cultures
to discipline them?
Spehro Pefhany
---------------------
If they never do them, whispering doesn't work.

Ever read the original Grimms Tales?

-Steve
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, but neither of them are killing people today. The US _did_ start
the one people are dying of while we talk about who needs history
lessons.

Ach, why do I try to teach a stone to think?

Stupe.
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
[snip]
There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice of
words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene
etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
Watson said:
[snip]

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice
of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the info.

Cheers
Terry
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry Given said:
Watson said:
[snip]

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice
of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the info.

Cheers
Terry

Sorry about the confusion.

Benzine is a carcinogen according to the gov't.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

However, this is what the gov't has to say about xylene:
<<
How likely are xylenes to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that xylene is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.

Human and animal studies have not shown xylene to be carcinogenic, but
these studies are not conclusive and do not provide enough information
to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer.
This is what the gov't has to say about toluene:
<<
How likely is toluene to cause cancer?

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.
 
C

Clarence

Jan 1, 1970
0
ChrisGibboGibson said:
It may be sheer coincidence (in fact it probably is) but in the UK Raleigh
(sp?) used to sell a range of products called the RSW range. It was a girl's
bike.

Gibbo

Does Raleigh still build the "Abby?"
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
Watson said:
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

[snip]



There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice

of


words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to
think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.
http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause
for

cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore
ultraviolet

radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to
remember

reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the
info.

Cheers
Terry


Sorry about the confusion.

Benzine is a carcinogen according to the gov't.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

However, this is what the gov't has to say about xylene:
<<
How likely are xylenes to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that xylene is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.

Human and animal studies have not shown xylene to be carcinogenic, but
these studies are not conclusive and do not provide enough information
to conclude that xylene does not cause cancer.


This is what the gov't has to say about toluene:
<<
How likely is toluene to cause cancer?

Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.

Perhaps I am mistaken re. Xylene and Toluene, but perhaps not. But I
knew Benzene was a nasty one. IMO all evil hydrocarbon solvents are to
be avoided - we are hydrocarbons :).

I mentioned it here a while back, but in the late 70s a friend of mine
did a study for the NZ military on the effects of radar installations on
health. They looked at the medical history of pretty much the whole
military, and found no correlation at all to radar proximity. OTOH they
found that armourers didnt make it past 65, and painters fared little
better. Johns conclusion? Bugger the RF, stay the hell away from nasty
chemicals.

Almost every day we are discovering work-related illnesses - almost all
of which involve people handling nasty chemicals (hell, often with no
PPE at all, workers saturated in evil shit like DDT or 2,4,5T).

And of course recent studies have shown a HUGE increase in Leukaemia for
kids who live next door to petrol stations - 5x or so.

Cheers
Terry
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
[snip]
There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice of
words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene
etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

Benzo-A-Pyrene.

I know. I was one of ~125 coders, who coded a collection of ~3,000,000
pages of documents. After a few months, words like benzo-a-pyrene seem
to lose their meaning.

Also ASHRAE, which, of course, we all pronounced "ash tray".

Cheers!
Rich


Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Watson said:
[snip]

There is a small problem with set theory here Rich; also your choice
of

words leaves something to be desired - for your assertion to hold,
smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for cancer. Best not to think
about Benzene (hey, isnt that in cigarette smoke?), xylene, toluene

etc.

No, it is benzpyrene. AFAICT, all those couldn't exist in the smoke
because they would've been burned up in the combustion.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/3,4-Benzpyrene.asp?q=3,4-Benz
pyrene

[snip]

I'll give you a hint:

"for your assertion to hold, smoking would need to be the ONLY cause for
cancer. Best not to think about Benzene, Xylene or Toluene"

All of which are carcinogens we encounter daily (its in unleaded
petrol), in direct contradiction to the requirement for smoking to be
the ONLY cause of cancer. Likewise we probably better ignore ultraviolet
radiation - skin cancer etc etc.

Although you are quite correct that none of the 3 would survive in
cigarette smoke as they are highly flammable. I just seemed to remember
reading something about benzene-like nasties in cigarette smoke, hence
the aside which perhaps obfuscated the sentence, but thanks for the info.

Sick building syndrome was a big hoopla back in those days. With all
the energy conservation hysteria, they started sealing up air leaks,
which caused the air to become stale and stagnant, and _everything_
that goes into the air stays, and hangs there, forever. From alpha-
emitting radon to dust mite feces, the air was loading up with
carcinogenic pollutants.

So what do they do? In their zeal to "clean up the air," they banned
tobacco smoke.

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. What banning tobacco smoke
does is, it removes the best possible indicator of poor ventilation.
They got rid of the visible smoke, so the benzene, formaldehyde,
all manner of volatile organic hydrocarbons, bacterial spores,
fungal spores, viral spores, active viruses, live bacteria, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, radon, dust mite feces, dust mites,
dust, human effluvia, etc, etc, etc, built up.

And the motherfuckers _still_ blame smoking for all their ills.

Stupid motherfucking nazi assholes.

Thanks,
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Studies in humans and animals generally indicate that toluene does not
cause cancer.

The EPA has determined that the carcinogenicity of toluene can not be
classified.

Yeah, but toluene is the part of airplane glue that gets you high
when you sniff it. So, naturally they'll ban that. They hate anything
that even remotely has anything to do with pleasure.

A puritan is a guy who just can't accept the fact that he was _born_
in bed with a lady.

Cheers!
Rich
 
Top