🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <86ss4c$hp8$4@mews.databasix.com>, moc@xisabatad.tacdem 
says...
> pat <patheinous@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <86q2t3$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.
> 
> Although I appreciate the compliemtn, let me hasten to remind you that I
> am NOT talking out my ASS. It is in fact YOU who are talking out of his
> FLACCID, STINKING RECTUM. 
> 
> > 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."
> 
> "life-assist.com?" I've come across them before. What a bunch of
> weirdos! I bet they wouldn't know a PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATION if it came
> up and bit them on the arse!
> 
> > http://www.medtek.lu.se/English/Education/oxygen/eallm.htm
> > "Oxygen itself is non flammable but it supports combustion."
> 
> Swedish. Nuff said.
>  
> > I'm sure I could have found more if I really looked, 
> 
> Yeah, RIGHT, bucko! Those are the only two URLs you could find to
> support your WEIRD, KOOKY thesis after a twelve hour session on
> AltaVista. Kinda hurts to admit you're wrong, huh?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> NO mate, they are fuelled entirely by Liquid Oxygen! Why do you not READ
> what I have written? Do you think I'm typing all this just for my OWN
> PLEASURE? READ IT, IDIOT! NOW!!
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Oh come come, I'm far too intelligent for that. I bet I'm more
> intelligent than you, too. And my dick is at least twice as big as you.
> 
> 
http://www.spaceline.org/history/33.html
"combination of liquid oxygen and gasoline"
http://www.kipertek.com/spaceline/history/32.html
"combination of liquid oxygen and gasoline"
http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~aesinfo/es/_vti_pvt/rockerty.htm
"liquid oxygen and gasoline"

I looked in Yahoo (I typed in "liquid oxygen fueled rockets") and this is 
what I found on the first page of the search results.
Know what I find hilarious?  The fact that you claim to be so 
intelligent, yet you can't even argue without calling me names.  You 
can't even show me anything to back up your bullshit!
What a pushover.
It's like beating a two year-old at basketball.
It's like the Nazi's rolling into France unmolested.
It's like you being turned down from girls, again and again.
Anyway, I'm finished with this, so you can continue to "refute" my 
replies or whatever you think you're doing, but next time you shoot your 
mouth off, maybe you should do a little research beforehand.