In view of your erroneous assertion that there is such a
thing as "food-grade" butane and propane fuels, the
committee has assessed you 11 Incredibility Points. It would
have been less, but your firm insistence without checking
any reliable sources - or even the company whose products
you were discussing - raised it to that level.

Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.

Your insistence that only one BernzOmatic product didn't
carry the California warning is either a lie for the sake of
"winning' an argument, or an example of not doing even the
most basic of checks to determine accuracy. In either case,
it has a dishonest overtone that the Committee said should
cost you an additional 18 Points.

The most egregious of your faux-pas was to leap to the
unwarranted and unchecked insistence that because the butane
lighter (not a propane torch) didn't carry the California
warning, it somehow had different properties than other such
products. The fact that there is no separate MSDS as
required by regulation for it, you chose to ignore and
evade. The fact that you were told that BernzOmatic said
they had no "food-grade" fuels made no difference - and you
didn't check to determine the accuracy of the report. You
didn't just say the product was different, you strenuously
and repeatedly asserted that the butane had no "heavy ends"
in it and was therefore free of carcinogenic properties. You
made that statement with no evidence and only the deduction
of your faulty reasoning, based on missing facts which you
didn't try to check. This one cost you 54 Points because the
reality was only a phone call away - to BernzOmatic customer
service - and you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity
to get the correct information.

As you should know, when Credibility Points reach 40, all
further statements should carry a reference to another
source. When they reach 55, they should carry a reference to
a known authority. When they reach 75, they need the
authority and a way to contact them for corroboration. As no
one has ever before surpassed 90 points, the Committee is at
somewhat of a loss to deal with this situation. Members are
divided about how to handle it. Some have suggested that you
need to document everything except your name, while others
want proof of that, as well. Some think your posts should
appear in a special color, perhaps a brilliant mauve, as a
signal that all might not be regular and credible about this
note. Still others think you should henceforward always sign
your posts "Mark Thorson 96CP" so everyone will know
automatically not to believe anything and to suspect
ulterior motive for everything.

The Committee adjourned after unsuccessfully trying to make
a Creme Brulee crust with the BernzOmatic Lighter because
the flame wasn't intense enough to melt enough sugar to
actually create a crust in a 4" souffle bowl. Before
adjourning, two members thought it would be reasonable to
assess you another 25 Points, but that missed carrying by
one vote out of 55. You barely dodged that bullet.

Words to the wise...

The Credibility Committee

You two are getting very tiresome.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article >,
"Default User" > wrote:

> You two are getting very tiresome.
>
>
>
>
> Brian

<shocked look>

You are actually still reading that thread?????
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Default User" > wrote:
>
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
>
> <shocked look>
>
> You are actually still reading that thread?????

It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Default User" > wrote:

> > > You two are getting very tiresome.

> > <shocked look>
> >
> > You are actually still reading that thread?????

> It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
> to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.

Sorry to hear that, Brian -- get better soon!

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice wrote:

> One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> > Omelet wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Default User" > wrote:
>
> > > > You two are getting very tiresome.
>
> > > <shocked look>
> > >
> > > You are actually still reading that thread?????
>
> > It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the
> > group to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.
>
> Sorry to hear that, Brian -- get better soon!

Mostly there. My ears are stopped up, but nose is clear and chest
almost.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On 10 Jan 2007 21:20:49 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Default User" > wrote:
>>
>> > You two are getting very tiresome.

>> >
>> > Brian
>>
>> <shocked look>
>>
>> You are actually still reading that thread?????
>
>It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
>to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.
>
>Brian

I'm alternating between this and Donald v. Rosie.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>
> You two are getting very tiresome.
>
>
>
>

Getting? My God, but you are generous!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote:

> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Getting? My God, but you are generous!

<cough>

I'm going to bed... That ended my day nicely!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Default User wrote:
> You two are getting very tiresome.

I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read
- wasn't anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You
might even get a grin.

Hope springs eternal.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
>
> I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read - wasn't
> anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You might even get a
> grin.

I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now after
your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I won't bother
reading it.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>> You two are getting very tiresome.
>> I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read - wasn't
>> anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You might even get a
>> grin.
>
> I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now after
> your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I won't bother
> reading it.
> Brian

I prostrate myself before your perfection.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now
> > after your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I
> > won't bother reading it.
> > Brian
>
> I prostrate myself before your perfection.

You really don't get it, do you?



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
> was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
> reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
> that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
> And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.

Did you not post the following (quoted in its entirety)
on Monday?

> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > The facts are that a) this product produces a blue cone
> > of flame indicating a temperature certainly high
> > enough to carmelize anything that is carmelizable,
> > and b) its fuel does not contain the hazards which
> > would require the State of California warning that
> > Bernomatic's other propane- and butane-fuelled are
> > required to carry.
>
> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning. Only
> the MSDS mentions it.
>
> > This is a product which is free of carcinogens.
>
> <LOL> A lighter to caramelize foods. Bwah...
>
> BernzOmatic's customer service people say that the fuel for
> this is their standard product.
>
> Pastorio

I'm aware you've already given a garbled
explanation for this, but here's your chance
to give a clear version of how your posting
can possibly be truthful, given that I've
already posted scanned images of a Bernzomatic
product that has the State of California warning
to alt.binaries.food.

In your more recent postings, you seem to be
trying to make a distinction between a "product"
and "fuel", but in the last sentence I quoted
above, you don't seem to be doing that.

Can you be more clear about this? In what
sense is your statement that "*NONE* of
BernzOmatic's products carry that warning."
not contradicted by the images I posted?

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
>> was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
>> reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
>> that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
>> And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.

So it wasn't a blind-side attack? And your statement was
truthful that I had lied about there not being a food-grade
torch?

Did you demonstrate that there is a "food-grade" torch?

These are your words:
"The last time this came up, one of the lies that Bob
Pastorio tried to float was that you couldn't buy a
food-grade torch."

Did you demonstrate there is a "food-grade" torch?

No. You didn't. No. You can't. No. There isn't one.

> Did you not post the following (quoted in its entirety)
> on Monday?
>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> The facts are that a) this product produces a blue cone
>>> of flame indicating a temperature certainly high
>>> enough to carmelize anything that is carmelizable,
>>> and b) its fuel does not contain the hazards which
>>> would require the State of California warning that
>>> Bernomatic's other propane- and butane-fuelled are
>>> required to carry.
>
>> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning. Only
>> the MSDS mentions it.
>>
>>> This is a product which is free of carcinogens.

This "free of carcinogens" lie is a Mark Thorson invention
borne out by no supporting information and directly
contradicted by BernzOmatic customer service people. A
demonstrable lie.

Making up things and trying to get people to believe them is
lying.

>> <LOL> A lighter to caramelize foods. Bwah...
>>
>> BernzOmatic's customer service people say that the fuel for
>> this is their standard product.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> I'm aware you've already given a garbled
> explanation for this,

Nice try sludgewit, but your shabbiness continues.
Excerpting as you do so you can slime your way to still
defending a clearly false position is exactly what I have
come to know and love about you. My *continued* explanations
detailed it very clearly, as you certainly know.

How garbled is "BernzOmatic's customer service people say
that the fuel for this is their standard product" on Planet
Thorson? Does that not say that the lighter and the fuel are
being considered differently? Is that too complex for you?

> but here's your chance
> to give a clear version of how your posting
> can possibly be truthful, given that I've
> already posted scanned images of a Bernzomatic
> product that has the State of California warning
> to alt.binaries.food.

Poor dishonest Marky can't seem to get his quotations in order.

I said on Monday:
"*NO* BernzOmatic products carry the California warning.
Period. They all use the same, unaltered fuels. Period."

> In your more recent postings, you seem to be
> trying to make a distinction between a "product"
> and "fuel", but in the last sentence I quoted
> above, you don't seem to be doing that.

Of course not, And you could offer hundreds more that don['t
do it. Because that wasn't the sentence that offered the
idea. The one I just quoted made that clear enough to
everybody but you. This one: "*NO* BernzOmatic products
carry the California warning. Period. They all use the same,
unaltered fuels. Period."

> Can you be more clear about this? In what
> sense is your statement that "*NONE* of
> BernzOmatic's products carry that warning."
> not contradicted by the images I posted?

The distinction is clear enough when you get a 12-year-old
to parse the sentences above.
They say (clearly) "*NO* BernzOmatic products carry the
California warning. Period." Which *could* include
everything under the BernzOmatic label. Until you reach the
next sentence, which says, "They all use the same, unaltered
fuels. Period."

See...? No, I'm sure you don't.

And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
*NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
other companies had the California warning on them, either.
Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
themselves, of course, were so labeled.

So, in addition to your toy lighter, here are a few more
BernzOmatic products without California warnings. They were
all packaged in transparent plastic with fuel cylinder and
attachments:
Basic Use Kit TS3000KC
Basic use Plumber's Kit - PK1001KC
Basic Use - Quickfire - TS3000KC
Power Cell - 94477
3-in-1 Micro torch - ST2200T - butane

I also noted that the ubiquitous, red Bic fire lighter had
no California warning anywhere on the package.

I guess they must all be made with "food-grade" fuels.

I'm still wondering why you won't call BernzOmatic customer
service and ask them instead of all your unfounded guesses,
wishful conjectures and outright lies.

> My explanation is that they are not flouting the law.
> The Flexible Utility Lighter is totally legal and safe.
> The generic butane MSDS does not apply to this product.

Your explanation is bullshit. By law, the company *must*
publish an appropriate MSDS for all such products. They have.

Your explanation is dust in the wind, moron.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> themselves, of course, were so labeled.

In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
It is a product. And it has the State of
California warning on it. Both the UPC
and the warning can be seen in the images
I posted to alt.binaries.food.

Is this how you defend yourself?
By redefining "product" to exclude
anything that exposes your words
as false? That is transparent nonsense,
but typical of you.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images

Oh for crying out loud Mark. Have you not made a big enough ass
of yourself on this one.

Last year you warned someone to make sure that when caramelizing
the sugar on their creme brulee that they use food grade
propane. That was absolute nonsense because there is no food
grade propane fuel. Period. You were given the opportunity to
provide proof of food grade propane but failed to do so. That did
not surprise us because there is no such thing, so we really
didn't expect you to find it.

Then you came back the the other day saying that Pastorio had
lied when he said one cannot buy a food grade torch. You
provided a link to a product and added that the product does not
contain the carcinogenic "heavy ends" found in other propane and
butane products. The product advertised in that link is not a
propane torch. It is a butane lighter. The MSDS linked to it is
for the Bernzomatic MSDS on the butane it sells, and it clearly
indicates a warning about carcinogenic chemicals in the fuel and
its by-products.

You lied when you said cited it as proof that there is a food
grade propane torch.
You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for the
company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
that you were simply to dumb to follow them.
You then started another thread where you accused Bob of lying,
and I cannot understand how you how lame it is to fabricate
nonsense to as some sort of proof about someone else lying.
You have steadfastly denied that the MSDS for Bernzomatic butane
gas applies to their butane gas refills without offering any
proof that they have a special refining process for those little
lighter refills.
You have been given ample opportunity to find a cite to prove
that food grade butane or propane is available.

> Is this how you defend yourself?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.

there is No need to redefine "product", but we may find ourselves
in the position of having to redefine "stupid" and move the
standard down low enough to include you if you keep this up.

Never mind trying to insult Bob's character. For crying out loud,
have the good sense to find proof that food grade propane is
available or admit that you were wrong. Of course, you have made
it obvious through your lies and allegations that we should not
expect you to be man enough to admit your error, but you could at
least shut up about it and try to save a little bit of dignity.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.

That's absolutely untrue. If it had such chemicals
it would be required in California to have the
State of California warning. The Flexible Utility
Lighter does not have that warning. Therefore,
you can be sure there are no such carcinogens in
the fuel of that product (at least not enough to
pose a significant risk of cancer over a lifetime
of exposure, which is the standard written into
the law). The law in California has a penalty of
up to $2500 a day per violation.

> You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for the
> company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
> that you were simply to dumb to follow them.

You yourself found a direct link from the web page
for the BF9 refill to the butane MSDS. That is a
product for which the MSDS applies, and it has the
State of California warning on it. There is no such
direct link from the web page for the Flexible
Utility Lighter, and therefore no reason to believe
it applies.

And it's not just the BF9. Here's the web page for
a propane torch kit. Go there, and you'll see a
direct link to its MSDS. That's true of every product
on the Bernzomatic web site for which an MSDS applies.

http://www.bernzomatic.com/bernzomat...rnzoProd100070

You're just grasping at straws to deny this, because
it's the only defense you've got.

Mark Thorson wrote:

I bet you think that BernzOmatic processes their own
propane. Right? I bet that you think that everything with
their brand name on it is made by them. Right? Employees
hammering out metallic things, sticking them in plastic
packaging and heat-welding them shut...?

The lighter is made in China. The fuel is packed in that
cute little yellow container in China. The fuel refills are
not available as a separate purchase in the U.S. yet, and
won't be until the end of the month according to "Crystal" a
customer service rep at BernzOmatic. She said to try Walmart
in a few weeks. You might just want to ask the people from
BernzOmatic about it instead of wildly conjecturing. And
being so wrong.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> I bet you think that BernzOmatic processes their own
> propane. Right? I bet that you think that everything with
> their brand name on it is made by them. Right? Employees
> hammering out metallic things, sticking them in plastic
> packaging and heat-welding them shut...?

I didn't write that. Don't be ascribing words to me
that I didn't write, no matter how convenient you find
it to be.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
>> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
>> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
>> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
>> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
>> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?

Mark, a gas cylinder is a product. I'm my original statement
which I've tried to translate into Thorson-speak several
times, I apparently haven't been able to make it simple
enough. In the interests of a wild curiosity to see if you
can grasp this, I hereby concede that I didn't write with
perfect, uninterpretable clarity. And I apologize for that.

I was trying to create a parallel with your assertion that
the packaging of the Lighter didn't carry the warning by
citing *all other* fuel-using products. Alas, my diction was
imperfect.

A gas cylinder is a product. You are correct in that statement.

But that doesn't negate the simple fact that *only* the
cylinders carry the California warning. The BernzOmatic
products that use fuel cylinders aren't so marked.
Competitive products from other companies also lack that
warning.

What is your conclusion from that series of facts?

> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?

I don't need to defend myself. Have you forgotten that you
began all this with your insane business about "food-grade"
propane and have continued it to this Lighter, asserting
that it's got a non-carcinogenic fuel because the packaging
doesn't carry a California warning?

Are you going to continue to evade dealing with the other
products that I specifically sited with no California
warning on them? Are you going to insist that they, too,
have this non-carcinogenic fuel?

> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.

Of course you have to say that, there's nothing else left.
No evidence for food-grade fuels. Period.

<LOL> I certainly hope you don't actually imagine that you
have somehow made your case for food-grade fuels. Here's a
sad, sad reality for you. No matter how wrong or right I
might be about any facet, trivial or large, you have offered
no substantive evidence for the existence of a food-grade
fuel. Period. Period. It's all based on your mistaken belief
that only the lighter has no California warning, and that it
somehow signals a non-carcinogenic fuel. Both plainly false
assumptions.

You haven't contacted the best source of all - the
manufacturer. You're still trying to make a phony assertion
stand in the face of demolishing counter-information from
*all* other posters. Nope.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> >> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> >> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> >> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> >> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> >> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
> >
> > In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
>
> Mark, a gas cylinder is a product.

Great! We're making progress here.
You now admit that a gas cylinder is a product.

Now, how do you reconcile that with your
statement that:

> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning.

I posted images of the Bernzomatic BF9 refill
to alt.binaries.food, which show that it is
marked with the State of California warning.

Did you see those images? Do you deny that
they show that the product is marked with
the warning?

You are not being consistent. Did you learn
nothing from Henry Kissinger's advice on
telling the truth?

In article >, says...
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> > And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> > *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> > warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> > other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> > Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> > themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.
>

You guys are going to be the poster children for the "Save the Morons"
foundation.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A wrote:
>
>>
> You guys are going to be the poster children for the "Save the Morons"
> foundation.
>
How first charitable act will be to teach morons how to filter
topics or, even easier, skip messages.

Peter A wrote:
> In article >, says...
>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
>>> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
>>> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
>>> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
>>> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
>>> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
>> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
>> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
>> It is a product. And it has the State of
>> California warning on it. Both the UPC
>> and the warning can be seen in the images
>> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>>
>> Is this how you defend yourself?
>> By redefining "product" to exclude
>> anything that exposes your words
>> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
>> but typical of you.
>>
>
> You guys are going to be the poster children for the "Save the Morons"
> foundation.

<LOL> Thank you, Peter, for your considered and
information-filled post.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

Mark Thorson wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> > And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> > *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> > warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> > other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> > Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> > themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.


Subject line changed...

And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...

--
Best
Greg

On 11 Jan 2007 23:21:31 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>
>
>Subject line changed...
>
>And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...

Oh, thanks.... you did it so those of us who killed the subject(s) get
to see more? Whoopeee.

--
See return address to reply by email

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Subject line changed...

This what passes for wit back at the redneck saloon...?

> And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...

<LOL> This is a hilarious observation. Apparently you're
reading all the posts while whining about how boring it all is.

The "fuel feud" is over with my posting of the components of
the fuel as explained by the company that peddles the
product. No "food-grade" anything. All the carcinogens still
in there.

Done.

Pastorio