NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/rape/2340

Text File | 1992-08-29 | 7.0 KB | 205 lines

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx!nmsu.edu!opus!ataylor
From: [e-mail] (Nosy)
Subject: WD-40 and Cosgrove's obsessions (Was: Store bought brew)
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 27 Aug 92 01:57:54 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:26:21 GMT
Lines: 190


Some of Cosgrove's more abusive text has been deleted.



<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

<>     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???

    Incorrect. Mace(tm) also attacks the breathing passages;
    it is sufficient to spray it on the mouth to get some
    vapors into the nasal passages. Indeed, until recently
    some police were trained to spray Mace(tm) on the CHEST
    of a subject in order to maximize the surface area and
    thus the vapors.

    The pepper-based sprays must be sprayed onto *some* mucous
    membrane in order to be effective; eyes are best, of course.

    The dye-marking sprays should be sprayed onto the face to
    aid in identification. I do not know if the dye-based sprays
    contain irritants or not.

    Now please tell me what my "true intentions" are....

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

    Exactly. Other products that have a known record of success
    and failure, as opposed to a water-displacing lubricant
    of dubious utility for self defense, which you are
    championing for some reason.

<And get a life!

    One wonders yet again what Cosgrove's point is....aside
    from flaming.

<><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.

    I have inhaled small amounts of WD-40 by accident. It
    was mildly annoying at worst. WD-40 generates no vapor and the
    aerosol is harmless; some people find the aroma of the
    aerosol to be pleasant.

    Hardly an endorsement for a self-defense tool.

    However, I bow to any expertise Cosgrove may have in the
    area of "snorting" household chemicals....

<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.

    I am unaware of WD-40 having any power to knock people
    unconscious; reading the label on the can provides no
    warning to that effect. Naturally, if one inhales enough
    to displace significant amounts of air, I suppose it could
    have that effect. It doesn't speak well of the use of
    WD-40 as a tool for self defense.

<>     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.

    False. WD-40 generates no vapors, unlike Mace(tm).

<And vice-verse. (They are even BOTH copyrighted, and I have left out the little
<(tm) on both!)


    Correct. However, WD-40 is a brand name and we are not using
    it in a generic sense. Mace(tm) is a brand name and also
    a word (a spice as well as a medieval weapon), thus it
    behooves one to include the (tm) in the interests of
    clarity.

    Assuming, of course, that one actually desires clarity
    in writing...

<Mace is not tear gas? Oh god! I thought there were identical in every
<way!!!


    Then you thought incorrectly. There are no artillery shells
    loaded with Mace(tm), for example.


<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.

    Incorrect. Mace(tm) is a purely aerosol product, just as
    the pepper based sprays are.


<LISTEN IDIOT:

    I've asked Cosgrove before whether he is really this
    abusive and confrontation-seeking in real life. He
    has ducked the question and will, no doubt, continue
    to duck the question.

    One wonders why such a person would wish to post
    to *this* newsgroup....

<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.

    Indeed. I have described that video on talk.rape 2 or
    3 times.

    Obviously Cosgrove read my posts....

<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.

    Correct. And both are far better than WD-40....which leaves
    me wondering why Cosgrove is so keen to defend WD-40 as
    a self defense tool?

<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.

    Thank you, Cosgrove, for the interesting display of the
    concept of "projection".


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

    Cosgrove thus displays another concept: "it's not MY fault".

<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)

    Please provide any evidence at all that I have ever posted
    anything on the subject of electronic door locks, Cosgrove.

    Cosgrove is obviously confused.

<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.

    WD-40 is not a viable alternative to Mace(tm) in the
    opinion of myself and (much more importantly) in the
    opinion of some people who make their living teaching
    methods of self defense.

    To suggest that it is on talk.rape is most irresponsible,
    Cosgrove.


<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.

    Note Cosgrove's obsession with public humiliation...

<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.

    Seek some help, Cosgrove. You obviously have some personal
    problems that need professional attention.