From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Ataylor obsession with trying to win (just) one.
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:12:45 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug28152621@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 	<ATAYLOR.92Aug26152634@gauss.nmsu.edu>
> 	<1992Aug27.015754.9725@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:26:21 GMT
> Lines: 190
> 
> 
> 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.

Petrolium distillates also attack the nasal passages and lungs.

> 
> 	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....

Arguing no matter what I say.

> 
> <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.

Water-displacing? Something which dissolves rust is water-displacing? Something
which is made from pertrolium distillates is merely water-displacing? Something
which will make you loopy if you breath it in is just water-displacing???

And, the reason I champion it is in states where you beloved mace is illegal, a
woman can carry WD-40 with almost nil chance of being convicted of a crime.

In states where mace is legal, woman should buy the most potent form there is.
Where it is illegal, she can either arm heslef with something that will not buy
her an arrest if her purse is ever searched (something like WD-40) or she can 
arm herself with mace and hope to god she is never attacked, AND never
searched.

THAT is why I champion it as an alternative.


> 
> <And get a life!
> 
> 	One wonders yet again what Cosgrove's point is....aside
> 	from flaming.

My point is to show options to most people. With people like you,
counter-flaming.

Remember bucko, every firefight between you and I started out with you firing
the first round.

YOU are the one starting all of this. If you don't like it, act civilized.


> 
> <><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. 

How did you "inhale" said stuff by accident? Point it at your face with your
mouth open while breathing in? Have someone spray your face with it while
playing "spray can tag"?

And, if you HAD ever inhaled it, why didn't you post said info earlier? Huh?
Why wait until the second week of our debate before bringing out this "fact"?
Did you forget about it for a little while and then remember, "Oh, I know! I
breathed in WD-40 once, by accident. Yeah. That's the ticket. Guess I can
write now that it is not bad in the lungs and eyes."

Why did you wait so long ataylor?


> 
> 	Hardly an endorsement for a self-defense tool.
> 
> 	However, I bow to any expertise Cosgrove may have in the
> 	area of "snorting" household chemicals....

No, you're the only one to have experimented with that shit.

> 
> <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.

I've seen it work on an animal before. Some sicko sprayed a dog with it. Dog,
after a few seconds, started to stagger around and collapsed. (Happy ending,
dog was O.K. after a while, unlike the warped human.)


> 
> <> 	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).

Well, I suppose if someone were to carry the vapor inducing Mace, it would be
better.

If it were legal in their state.


> 
> <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.

Gee, only mace any of US thought we were talking about was the kind that sprays
out harmful chemicals into someone's face.

You really think anyone thought we were discussing a steel rod with a spiked
ball at the end???

Drop the (tm) unless you have a fetish or something.


> 
> 	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.

Example number 39 that subtlety and sarcasm are not recognized by ataylor.
Looks like I'll have to stick to harsh words. Oh well, I tried.


> 
> 
> <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.
> 

Example #40.

> 
> <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.

Why do you repeat the same questions that have ALREADY been answered? You
suffer from alzheimers?

I told you yesterday, when someone is as abrasive with me as you have been, I
tear into them ever bit as much as I do you.

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

True, as I do value academic, rational debate; while this board is filled with
people like you who jump in with whatever you first latch onto and attack, and,
even after you find out your intial (half-assed) assumption was wrong, you
cling to it anyway.


> 
> <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....

Well, one of us should read what the other is saying.

> 
> <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?

Because you were keen to dismiss it without even cosnidering the fact that in
states where mace is illegal, a woman can carry something else with minimal
risk of prosecution--even if the cop opens her purse and finds it in there.

Which is pretty strong indication it was not the message you disagreed with,
but who said it.


> 
> <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".

Can you do NO better than saying "That's what you are, now what am I?"

Or didn't you get beyond the fourth grade?

As for just wanting to annoy you, all you have to do is grow up, act civilized,
and not attack everything I say, and there is no fight between us.

But, do not expect me to drop it first. You tore into me first, and you are
going to have to walk away.


> 
> 
> <For those people who have been suggesting I treat hostile people more kind:
> 
> 	Cosgrove thus displays another concept: "it's not MY fault".

Right, it was my fault for returning your first puches.

Or, have you selectively forgotten that all of this started when you accused me
of calling rape victims "stupid"? (Or, did my question to someone else FORCE
you to start telling me what I could and could not say?)


> 
> <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.

Didn't you post something about door locks that could somehow keep a rapist out
of a car? Or was that someone else?

> 
> 	Cosgrove is obviously confused.

Possibly. After a while, irrational people tend to blend together.


> 
> <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.

Like who?

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

Well, if it is only your opinion, it is ONLY YOUR opinion.

If some EXPERTS in the field would care to get on here and say that such an
item is not a possible self-defense item option to a woman who does not wish to
carry mace in states where mace is illegal, then I would heartily agree it is
not a good option.

However, even if that were to happen, my posting it as a possible alternative
would NOT be irresponsible. You are reaching way to far to try and nail me on
anything you can. (Not that I can't sympathize, your record includes a lot of
attackers which I am sure you thought were clear winners, and were easily
deflected by me.) 

It is not irresponsable to post an idea in the public arena for healthy debate.
At no time did I say WD-40 is something a woman SHOULD carry. I said it was
something a woman might or could carry as an alternative so she could avoid
prosecution.

What immediately happens? People flame me because it would be EASY for her to
be prosecuted. DA's prove that kind of thing all the time and make deals with
the rapist to prosecute her. Crosgrove (whoops, sorry) Cosgrave, you are stupid
for thinking a woman wouldn't be automatically locked up forever if she carried
WD-40 for personal protection!

A week later someone finally gets around to feebly debating whther or not it
will stop an attacker.

As much as I can't stand your disgusting intentional mis-quoting and trying to
twists facts around, at least you finally got around to an important
issue--will WD-40 stop a rapist?

My honest opinion? Not as good as mace. But if someone is concerned about being
arrested for mace posession, it is better than anything else store bought which
has been suggested.

What IS irresponsible is trying to attack the messenger by trying to 
pick the message apart, EVEN IF IT IS VIABLE.

What do YOU claim a woman should do where mace is illegal? Lay back and enjoy
it or try to use items of defense that she can get away with?

> 
> 
> <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...

Well, this is a public forum. That means you get humilated in public. If you
wnated angry words without everyone seeing it, should have chosen e-mail.

> 
> <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.

Yes, my "problem" does need professional attention, but I doubt you will ever
get it.