From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: WD-40 and Cosgrove's obsessions (Was: Store bought brew)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug26152634@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug27.015754.9725@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:26:21 GMT


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



<In article <1992Aug27.015754.9725@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu 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.