home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20 / NN_1992_20.iso / spool / alt / cesium / 78 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-09-10  |  986 b 
  1. Xref: sparky alt.cesium:78 rec.humor:28287
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!caen!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!ringer!lonestar.utsa.edu!kjurena
  3. From: kjurena@lonestar.utsa.edu (Keith R. Jurena)
  4. Newsgroups: alt.cesium,rec.humor
  5. Subject: Re: Welcome!!
  6. Message-ID: <1992Sep10.220319.15158@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
  7. Date: 10 Sep 92 22:03:19 GMT
  8. References: <agq-jvB@engin.umich.edu> <h1rn7_c.gooley@netcom.com> <1992Sep09.091940.10367@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
  9. Sender: news@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
  10. Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
  11. Lines: 9
  12. Nntp-Posting-Host: lonestar.utsa.edu
  13.  
  14. In article <1992Sep09.091940.10367@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:
  15. >In article <h1rn7_c.gooley@netcom.com> gooley@netcom.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
  16. >>Why cesium?
  17. Because it is also spelled caesium
  18.  
  19. >>
  20. >>Why not bismuth?
  21. because pepto-bismol contains bismuth and this is not a "shitty" group.
  22. Sodium is too unstable and potassium is inferior  JAFNG-  figure it out
  23.