Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
kind" in the conference areas.

That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an
occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.

https://philcon.org/policies/

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
>the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
>kind" in the conference areas.
>
>That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
>they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an
>occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
>
>https://philcon.org/policies/

(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even
blink at them.)

On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
>> the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
>> kind" in the conference areas.
>>
>> That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
>> they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an
>> occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
>>
>> https://philcon.org/policies/
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
> prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even
> blink at them.)

Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:42:32 -0400, Gary McGath wrote:

> On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
>>> the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
>>> kind" in the conference areas.
>>>
>>> That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
>>> they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice,
>>> an occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
>>>
>>> https://philcon.org/policies/
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically prescribed
>> nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even blink at them.)
>
> Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?

Not normally, but if you had enough of them you could make something that
would. But it would be a lot more trouble than just using household
chemicals.

Which reminds me of a story my mother likes to tell about her finding me
mixing all the chemicals I could find together in the sink when I was
little(sades of my future career). Of course it might just show I had a
death wish as a child since there is also the story of how I used a razor
blade to shave the plastic off a power cord while it was plugged in to
see what would happen.

Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:

> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
> 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.

"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
occasional hydrogen atom.

Does explosives include methane gas? Do attendees have to purge their
intestinal tract before attending to ensure there will be no farts?
(Do committee members?)

I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of the
terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's so, they
probably should have included that fact in the policy document.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
>news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
>> 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
>> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
>
>"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
>everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
>occasional hydrogen atom.
<snip>
>I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of the
>terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's so, they
>probably should have included that fact in the policy document.

Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.

I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.

On 9/20/22 8:51 PM, Someone Else wrote:
> In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
>> news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
>>> 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
>>> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
>>
>> "Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
>> everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
>> occasional hydrogen atom.
> <snip>
>> I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of the
>> terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's so, they
>> probably should have included that fact in the policy document.
>
> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
> definition.
>
> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
> if badly-worded, rule.

Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Does explosives include methane gas? Do attendees have to purge their
>intestinal tract before attending to ensure there will be no farts?
>(Do committee members?)

I would support this proposal, especially at Chorizocon.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <tgdc48$1jr1i$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
>>> the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
>>> kind" in the conference areas.
>>>
>>> That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
>>> they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an
>>> occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
>>>
>>> https://philcon.org/policies/
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
>> prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even
>> blink at them.)
>
>Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?

None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
has crossed my mind to try it...

If it could be made to go off, it wouldn't be much of a bang.
The dosage (per pill) is--going by the label--0.4mg.

It's really one of those "principle of the thing" points. If you
ban "all explosives", you have just banned medically prescribed
nitro tablets. Anyone with a history of a heart condition might
be carrying some. It's where "zero tolerance" becomes stupid.
It also shows why simplistic rules are bad, but good rules
probably aren't going to be simple.

Someone Else <someone.else@example.com.invalid> wrote in
news:2nnkihh9dbqhpisoro2qllhu40juqfgigl@4ax.com:

> In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
>>news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
>>> Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
>>> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
>>
>>"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
>>everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
>>occasional hydrogen atom.
> <snip>
>>I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of
>>the terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's
>>so, they probably should have included that fact in the policy
>>document.
>
> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
> definition.

If so, they have failed pretty thoroughly.
>
> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
> the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a
> loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>
It's either stupidly comprehensive, or ambiguous enough to be
meaningless.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
news:tgdnip$1kmqb$1@dont-email.me:

> On 9/20/22 8:51 PM, Someone Else wrote:
>> In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
>>> news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
>>>> Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
>>>> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
>>>
>>> "Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
>>> everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
>>> occasional hydrogen atom.
>> <snip>
>>> I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of
>>> the terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's
>>> so, they probably should have included that fact in the policy
>>> document.
>>
>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
>> definition.
>>
>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
>> the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also
>> a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>
> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know
> that everything is made of chemicals.
>
You'd think that, yes.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:

>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
>> definition.
>>
>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
>> if badly-worded, rule.
>
> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
> everything is made of chemicals.
>

Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
chemical?

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>
>>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
>>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
>>> definition.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
>>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
>>> if badly-worded, rule.
>>
>> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
>> everything is made of chemicals.
>>
>
>Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
>chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
>chemical?

(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".

It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
> >
> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
> >>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
> >>> definition.
> >>>
> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
> >>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
> >>> if badly-worded, rule.
> >>
> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
> >> everything is made of chemicals.
> >>
> >
> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
> >chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
> >chemical?
> (Hal Heydt)
> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>
> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
> to point out any INorganic food.

NaCl? Other necessary minerals?

--
Kevin R

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:08:28 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
>Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>>
>>>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
>>>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
>>>> definition.
>>>>
>>>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
>>>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
>>>> if badly-worded, rule.
>>>
>>> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
>>> everything is made of chemicals.
>>>
>>
>>Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
>>chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
>>chemical?
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
>something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>
>It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
>to point out any INorganic food.

In the produce department the cheaper fruits and veg. are generally
not "organic", though, as you point out, they're also not INorganic
(in either sense of the word, they grew, and they contain carbon).

BTW water (for instance), properly, shouldn't contain any carbon.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
>
>None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
>taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
>has crossed my mind to try it...

My ex's brother tried it with his father's heart pills. Also tried
heating them. There's not enough in there to be fun.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
>Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
>chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
>chemical?

"Do you mean chemicals or reagents?"
-- Mr. Devlin, my 9th grade science teacher

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
>to point out any INorganic food.

Salt.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
> >
> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
> >>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
> >>> definition.
> >>>
> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
> >>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
> >>> if badly-worded, rule.
> >>
> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
> >> everything is made of chemicals.
> >>
> >
> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
> >chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
> >chemical?
> (Hal Heydt)
> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>
> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
> to point out any INorganic food.

1. Salt.
2. The 'iron fish' used to supplement poor diets

pt

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
> Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
>> >>> they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
>> >>> some legal definition.
>> >>>
>> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
>> >>> than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one
>> >>> is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
>> >> know that everything is made of chemicals.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
>> >of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
>> >make it a chemical?
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
>> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>>
>> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
>> to point out any INorganic food.
>
> NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
>
There's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to have
zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in
news:tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me:

> On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>
>>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
>>> they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
>>> some legal definition.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
>>> the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also
>>> a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>>
>> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know
>> that everything is made of chemicals.
>>
>
> Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
> of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
> make it a chemical?
>
During the height of the "Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" meme,
a lawyer friend of mine was present at a local city council meeting
in which they had scheduled a vote to ban this evil chemical. (They
aborted the vote when an assistant explained it to them.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rIJEHM.1Ln4@kithrup.com:

> In article <tgdc48$1jr1i$1@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>> Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
>>>> Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
>>>> chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
>>>>
>>>> That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the
>>>> conference areas, they'll have to be pumped out to hard
>>>> vacuum. Even then, in practice, an occasional hydrogen
>>>> molecule will violate the policy.
>>>>
>>>> https://philcon.org/policies/
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
>>> prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't
>>> even blink at them.)
>>
>>Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
>
> None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
> taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
> has crossed my mind to try it...
>
> If it could be made to go off, it wouldn't be much of a bang.
> The dosage (per pill) is--going by the label--0.4mg.
>
> It's really one of those "principle of the thing" points. If
> you ban "all explosives", you have just banned medically
> prescribed nitro tablets. Anyone with a history of a heart
> condition might be carrying some. It's where "zero tolerance"
> becomes stupid. It also shows why simplistic rules are bad, but
> good rules probably aren't going to be simple.

Zero tolerance policies are a (bad) response to discriminatory
enforcement. When human judgement is involved, some people will be
*bad* calls. Attempting to remove that element causes far more
problems than it solves.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
>> >>> "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
>> >>> definition.
>> >>>
>> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
>> >>> ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
>> >>> if badly-worded, rule.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
>> >> everything is made of chemicals.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
>> >chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
>> >chemical?
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
>> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>>
>> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
>> to point out any INorganic food.
>
>NaCl? Other necessary minerals?

Making a meal of enough table salt for it to be the principle
ingredient really wouldn't be good for you, so while it can be
classed as a condiment, food would be a real stretch.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
>news:917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>> Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
>>> >>> they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
>>> >>> some legal definition.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
>>> >>> than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one
>>> >>> is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>>> >>
>>> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
>>> >> know that everything is made of chemicals.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
>>> >of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
>>> >make it a chemical?
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
>>> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>>>
>>> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
>>> to point out any INorganic food.
>>
>> NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
>>
>There's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to have
>zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.

Does it cause anal leakage?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:tgg2hu$rgm$1@panix2.panix.com:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>news:917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy
>>> J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>> >On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
>>>> >>> they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather
>>>> >>> than some legal definition.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
>>>> >>> than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this
>>>> >>> one is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
>>>> >> know that everything is made of chemicals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense
>>>> >definition" of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen
>>>> >monoxide, does that make it a chemical?
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
>>>> something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
>>>>
>>>> It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be
>>>> able to point out any INorganic food.
>>>
>>> NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
>>>
>>There's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to
>>have zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.
>
> Does it cause anal leakage?

The manufacturer says not.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.