🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <86q2t3$bai$1@herekittykitty.databasix.com>, 
moc@xisabatad.tacdem says...
> pat <patheinous@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <86nsc9$ekm$1@upa.usenet-performance-art.org>, 
> > moc@xisabatad.tacdem says...
> > > pat <patheinous@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <86nbcc$koo$1@upa.usenet-performance-art.org>, Heimdall 2000
> > > > (heimdall@(spamhacesuckage)usenet-performance-art.org) says...
> > > >  |
> > > >  V
> > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:56:53 GMT, x@y.com (�|��) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >This is your brain.   The 2-Belo  is your brain on drugs.  Any
> > > > > >questions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >%Millennial Catastrophe is, like, you know, a homo, and stuff. Here's
> > > proof:
> > > > > >%>The Y2K-Belo <emperor-of-meow@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp> wrote:
> > > > > >%>
> > > > > >%>> Field Marshal Sergi wrought:
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> >I was like "Oh my GOD!  No WAY!"  And so then moc@xisabatad.tacdem
> > > > > >%>> >(Millennial Catastrophe) totally goes like:
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> >>�|�� <x@y.com> wrote:
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>> This is your brain.   Millennial Catastrophe  is your brain on
> > > drugs.  Any
> > > > > >%>> >>> questions?  
> > > > > >%>> >>> 
> > > > > >%>> >>> % http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~fnord/nuke.html
> > > > > >%>> >>> 
> > > > > >%>> >>> 
> > > > > >%>> >>> 
> > > > > >%>> >>> NUKE IPSWICH
> > > > > >%>> >>> 
> > > > > >%>> >>> http://super-mojo.virtualave.net/blub/HAHAMEDCAT.htm
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>"One or more Shite^H^H^Hockwave files are missing"
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>*Spnak?*
> > > > > >%>> >>
> > > > > >%>> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!111
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> ><Jiffy Club>
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> >you need a better browser <g>
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> >then youd be able to see our pictures<vbg>
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> >instead of being a dumb textie<nod>
> > > > > >%>> >
> > > > > >%>> ></Jiffy Club>
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> <vader>
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> Do not underestimate the power of the WebCenter.
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp/index.html
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> </vader>
> > > > > >%>> 
> > > > > >%>> NUKE NEW YORK
> > > > > >%>
> > > > > >%>***FOL___! You've led in with your biggest shot. Ivy Mike, at fifteen
> > > > > >%>megatons, was the most powerful atmospheric nuke ever fired. Now what
> > > > > >%>are you going to do when the whole world declares war on you and
> > > > > >%>starts X-raying all your quaint little wooden cities (again) and
> > > > > >%>all you've got left is a bunch of weeny little Soviet
> > > > > >%>firecrackers and damp buckshot? HUH?
> > > > > >%
> > > > > >%A can of beans. A bad stomach. A lighter. 
> > > > > >%
> > > > > >%You figure out the rest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The Gastric Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically banned the use of
> > > > > >intercontinental ballistic 2BFMPD (2-Belo Fiery Mexican-Pizza
> > > > > >Defecation) weapons.  Further testing of such monstrous devices has
> > > > > >been permanently discontinued.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-- 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was the Russian
> > > > > "Tsar Bomba" on October 30, 1961.   Dropped from a Tupolev TU-95
> > > > > bomber, and airburst, the bomb yielded an incredible 50 megatons!  For
> > > > > comparision, the Hiroshima bomb was a mere pipsqueak at 12 kilotons or
> > > > > so.  The "Tsar Bomba" was about 4000 times(!) more powerful than the
> > > > > Hiroshima bomb.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even so, "Tsar Bomba" was actually a 100 megaton bomb, but the yield
> > > > > was intentionally reduced to 50 megatons in order to mitigate global
> > > > > atmospheric fallout.  Mighty considerate of those Russkies to do so,
> > > > > IMHO.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Read all about it and other fascinating weapons of mass destruction
> > > > > here;
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Russia/Sovwarhead.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Another interesting trivial fact for your perusal.     During the
> > > > > early days of nuclear testing, a number of scientists were concerned
> > > > > about unexpected atmospheric chain reactions.  That is, the star-like
> > > > > temperatures and pressures achieved during detonation potentially
> > > > > causing a chain reaction igniting all the oxygen in the planet's
> > > > > atmosphere.  Everything on earth might have been burned to a crisp in
> > > > > a brief annihilating instant.
> > > > 
> > > > Oxygen doesn't ignite, it merely helps ignition.  I don't think there are
> > > > high enough traces of explosive gasses in our atmosphere, and if they
> > > > were, theyd be set off every time someone lit a match.
> > > > Or something
> > > 
> > > Ever tried lighting a match in or near a liquid oxygen storage tank?
> > > 
> > > 
> > Yes, I in fact work with oxygen, 
> 
> Don't we all, luvvy?
> 
> > and the reason they tell you this is 
> > because they don't want you accidentially set off any oils or other 
> > flammable agent's that may be around.
> > OXYGEN DOESN'T BURN, IT PROMOTES BURNING.
> > You cannot have a fire without oxygen, but without any type of fuel, you
> > wont get a fire either.
> 
> Go on then. Drop a lighted fag into a tank of oxygen on your next break.
> I promise I'll come and visit you in hospital. 
> 
> > Didn't you go to school?  This is common chemistry.
> 
> I did indeed go to school, and there I learned many wonderful things,
> including the fact that many orbital lifters are fuelled by liquid
> oxygen. 
> 
> 
*sigh*
I'm assuming you are being belligerant about this on purpose, but for one 
talking out of his ass, you do remarkably well.
I did all a search of oxygen facts, and here's what I found.  I even 
listed the URL's as proof:

http://www.life-assist.com/recallinfo.html
"Oxygen does not burn, but oxygen supports combustion."

http://www.medtek.lu.se/English/Education/oxygen/eallm.htm
"Oxygen itself is non flammable but it supports combustion."

I'm sure I could have found more if I really looked, but I figured this 
would suffice.  I'm an aircraft maintainer by trade, and I'm constantly 
working around LOX (liquid oxyen) and traditional gaseous oxygen, so it's 
required reading to know about the materials you are dealing with.
Guessing, the orbital lifters you are referring to used LOX to increase 
the combustion rate for a smaller amount of fuel.
Cute little quip about everyone working with oxygen, and I'm actually 
surprised you weren't shallow enough to point out that I wrote agent's 
instead of agents.