NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/rape/2309

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:57:54 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 183

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nosy) writes:
>     <[e-mail]>
>     <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:26:34 GMT
> Lines: 84
>
> <In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> <   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nosy) writes:
> <   > <In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> <   >
> <   > <   Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
> <   > <   49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
> <   >
> <   > <   It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.
> <   >
> <   >     Please provide some support for this assertion.
> <   >
> <   >
>
> [shopping details deleted]
>
> <Effective can be split into two categories, range and deterrence in eyes.
> <Range is about 8-10 feet. Some mace sprays in a better aimable stream, other
> <brands go for the 'shotgun' approach.
>
>     Cosgrove must have a unique can of WD-40. I've never seen
>     any spray lubricant that could direct a stream of liquid
>     8 to 10 feet away; most have nozzles that create a "fog"
>     with a "range" of about 2 feet.

Most nozzles do. Not all. Go and but a trial size of WD-40 and find how wrong
you are.

>
>     Thus, the range would appear to be deficient.

Sure, if you used an off brand with a different nozzle like the one YOU tested.

>
> <Deterrence is based upon the fact it uses petrolium distillates for
> <it's active ingredient. In brief, it is like getting gasoline in the eyes.
>
>     Assuming, of course, that one can GET it into an attackers
>     eyes.

Well, look who is getting so picky his true intentions show. Wasn't this thread
started discussing mace and home brews, and WD-40 as a viable alternative?
Don't you have to get ALL of those in someone's eyes for the to work???

Remember, we are not comapring this against a gun, we are comparing it against
similar products.

And get a life!

>
> <Becuase the general consensus is that mace is nto strong enough all of the
> <time, but gasoline is, this would appear to indicate that the WD-40 is better.
>
>     Mace(tm) indeed comes in differing strengths. However,
>     it is not nearly as easy to spray someone's eyes as you
>     appear to believe, which is why Mace(tm) also attacks the
>     respiratory system.

Snort some WD-40 or ANY petrolium disstalte. See how begnin it is to the mucus
membranes and central nervous system. Unless mace makes you loopy and knocks
you unconscious, WD-40 has mace beat in that area.

>
>     For example, if one's attacker is wearing glasses, goggles
>     or a transparent mask, it will be difficult to impossible
>     to succeed in spraying any substance into the eyes.
>
>     Perhaps the makers of chemical tools for personal defence
>     know more about their business than D. C. Cosgrove?

So far, everthing you have said about mace also applies to WD-40. And
vice-verse. (They are even BOTH copyrighted, and I have left out the little
(tm) on both!)

They may know their business better than me, but you suse don't understand what
makes an argument valid.


>
>
> <Speaking from personal experience, during tear gas training, not only was I
> <able to give my name, rank, and duty section in a room full of tear gas, I was
> <actually arrogant enough to ask the instructor if he was sure that was all he
> <wanted after he told me I could leave. (Yes, I regreted it for a full twenty
> <minutes after I got out, as it felt like my lungs were coming out, but overall,
>  <it was worth it.)
>
>     Since tear gas is neither Mace(tm) nor WD-40, this
>     anecdote isn't particularly useful, to the discussion at
>     hand anyway.

Gee, funny. I had always heard tear gas and mace were both designed to utuilize
similar acting compunds and achieve similar results.

>
>     It *does* provide Cosgrove's ego with more stroking and
>     indirectly provides readers with some information about
>     just how accurate Cosgrove is on the subject....

Slamming you does not stroke my ego and more than putting a sick bird out of
its misery strokes my ego.

>
> <Converesely, I once wiped my eyes with a hand that I had spilled gas
> <on an hour earlier.
>
>     Ah, I see; spray the WD-40 on your hand and rub it into
>     the eyes of an attacker.
>
>     What's wrong with this picture?

Besides your feeble attempt at absurdism?

>
> <I'll take the tear gas (Mace) in my face any day of the week, because I know I
> <can still operate under its effects.
>
>     Mace(tm) is not tear gas.
>     Sorry to introduce cruel reality into this discussion.

Mace is not tear gas? Oh god! I thought there were identical in every way!!! I
thought that a tiny little tear gas pellet was dropped into a little pan of
reagent inside the mace canister, and the resulting gas was sprayed out in a
stream.


LISTEN IDIOT: From what other people on here have been saying, mace SUCKS as a
self-defense spray. There are self-defense videos out there showing a woman
getting sprayed in the face with mace and she proceedes to walk over, and stab
someone with a rubber knife.

Mace and tear gas are very similar in the fact that BOTH are over-rated as being
something which can stop an attacker dead in his tracks.

Why does everything have to be spelled out in clear and exact language with
you? Are you intentionally acting so ungodly stupid as a ploy to rattle me into
making a mistake somewhere? Or just to annoy me period.

It must be a ploy, because no one could be so lacking in both reasoning power
AND common sense as you appear to be and still be able to breathe.

>
> <Petrolium or distillates thereof? Not a prayer.
>
>     Cosgrove appears to be suggesting that vapors of gasoline
>     would also make an appropriate self-defense tool....can
>     anyone see a problem with this?

Aside from the fact that is not what I am suggesting? Not a lot. If that
were what I was suggesting, it would be wrong.

Now, I know you do really, really, horrible with the english language, so let me
state this so even you (Please, God, he tries SO hard, let him...) get it this
one time:

I am not suggesting gas vapors for self-defense. I am suggesting WD-40 and
other similar spray products.

DC

__________________________

For those people who have been suggesting I treat hostile people more kind:

First he is upset because I am not making constructive comments on rape
prevention (which he shows his expertiese of by talking about electronic door
locks) then when I post a viable alternative to mace, he tries some cheap,
shallow ploy to somehow equate WD-40 as being as effective as using gas vapors
for self-defense. You want me to be civil with him??? No way. This bozo
DESERVES to be beat up on verbally. He DESERVES to be publicly humiliated.

Every single time he lies, intentionally mis-quotes, or slips into the absurd,
I am going to crush his pysche more and more.

Every time.