On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:17:11 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2022 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2022 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most of these fires are NOT accidental but from deliberate sabotage.
>>>>> There is natural gas that is vented downwind so all someone has to
>>>>> do is approach in the dead of night
>>>>
>>>> Baloney. Natural gas is lighter than air and will rise. If the
>>>> leaking gas column is at the water line, the gas will rapidly diffuse
>>>> to a concentration less than the 5 to 15% fuel/air mixture needed for
>>>> combustion. Your hypothetical midnight arsonist would need to capture
>>>> some of the leaking gas, mix it with the optimum stoichiometric volume
>>>> of air, and ignite the mix without becoming a suicide bomber. Even
>>>> so, the resulting explosion would probably not ignite the surrounding
>>>> gas.
>>>>
>>>>> - often in these privately funded mini-submarines and light this
>>>>> vented gas. If you look at the reports of the investigations of
>>>>> these fires there are very few other explanations.
>>>>
>>>> Got any links to examples of mini-subs and mysterious oil platform
>>>> fires? I found a few accusations of sabotage, but no real evidence or
>>>> convictions. Also, no mention of mini-submarines:
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+platform+fire+sabotage>
>>>>
>>>> [ 15 mins wasted while eating a late dinner ]
>>>>
>>> With a long history of rank incompetence, corruption and
>>> political placements in management,PEMEX is not new to these
>>> problems.
>>
>> You don't light the place you are living on fire with no fast escape no matter how incompetent you are, Jeff shows that as being physically crippled, he is mentally crippled. The molar weight of air is 28 and that of natural gas is 25. This difference is so slight that it easily blows downwind and is largely dispersed before rising due to that slight weight difference. What sort of ignorance he has is displayed with every posting.
>>
>
>PEMEX has suffered four major platform fires in the same new
>Gulf field in just over a year. (in the US portion of it,
>we've been producing for several years) PEMEX just do not
>have the skill set for this work.

But PEMEX, like about all the national oil companies in the world was
trained by foreigners, usually Americans (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:44:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/14/2022 6:13 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 13.03.2022 um 00:13 schrieb John B.:
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 11:05:55 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 12.03.2022 um 06:17 schrieb John B.:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 22:00:35 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 8:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:42:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2022 6:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:49:56 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:34:40 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 7:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:12:47 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 5:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 07:59:30 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2022 10:57 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:23:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2022 5:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:40:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 10:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:46:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2022 17:20:47 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 3:58 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 9:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2022 10:38 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't get my mind around the pure stupidity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who do not understand that the largest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and mostly of blacks are in entirely Democrat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they believe that "guns bad" and "gun control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Tom, I'm sure you can't _remember_,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but upthread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a link to gun death rates per capita.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Southern Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states do worse than most Democratic states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the discussion again. Drop your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hair-trigger right wing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prejudices for a bit and try to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk of firearms murders in the south are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami etc; same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in USA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is why I countered the call for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> national program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or policy earlier with a call for subsidiarity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problems of Milwaukee are not the problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding high density suburban counties,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statutes and same governor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While Frank is correct that gun deaths per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capita tend to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher in red states, the FBI cautions against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using any one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demographic marker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What contributes to political party preference are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying factors that also lead to higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime rates,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including poverty and low education levels. Red
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states tend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be poorer and have lower education levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look at the election results in the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 15 states with the highest education levels,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utah, went for Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Trump stated when he won in 2016: “We won
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with poorly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educated. I love the poorly educated.�
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice topic drift there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Milwaukee administrations have been Socialist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrat overwhelmingly for over 100 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Statewide,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wisconsin is a switch hitter. No more reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party stronghold than Chicago. Illinois statewide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embraced competent and incompetent from both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But socialism is so appealing to the American Public.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is a surer way to get elected then to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the voters, "Elect me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'll give you...". You know, things like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Security,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unemployment, Medicaid (or whatever they call it),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food and housing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistance, Aid to Unwed Mothers, and on and on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does health care cost in Thailand? Refresh our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here? For a citizen, 30 baht a visit, about 91 cents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S., and free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for those over 60.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But what are you trying to prove? That Social
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Security, etc., are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> socialistic services as I stated?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "socialism is so appealing to the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Public"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That Thailand provides socialistic services for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm indicating (or emphasizing) that what you said is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> places. And I'm hinting that it's often a net benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the citizenry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the society.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Frank, you are arguing a "fact" that was never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed.I stated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that " But socialism is so appealing to the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Public." and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way to get elected was to , "to tell the voters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Elect me and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give you...".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't arguing. I was agreeing with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A change of subject, but I believe that the U.S. has had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what might be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called "socialized medicine" since just after WW II. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had an uncle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who was wounded in combat and had back problems for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years after and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember him going to "The Veteran's Hospital" which, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sort of "government" hospital.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with any large institution, a mixed bag. I know a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> veterans who avoid the VA where there is any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternate. Then again a valued customer (Special Forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1963~1966) of long standing says he used to avoid them, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says once one develops the usual panoply of 'old man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles' they are tops. Locally, we've had serious VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficiencies which became national news while simultaneously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one does serious combat injuries better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to argue but in my uncle's case the doctors, at the Vet's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hospital, suggested fusing two  vertebrae as a probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cure for his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem. Which he resisted for years - "they don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally the pain grew so great that he could no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work - he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an electrician doing mostly construction work - and he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years of pain decided to let them go ahead and fuse two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vertebrae.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After, perhaps, two weeks in the hospital (it was a long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time ago and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I forget) he got out and was able to go back to work. He
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things like, "Gee I wish they had done this years ago."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I noted, a mixed bag.  My two Senators are as far apart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically as any two Americans could be, yet they agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://revealnews.org/article/alarm-over-wisconsin-vas-troubles-follows-years-of-complaints/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that reference and it seemed to me that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> largely about a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single individual, a "chief of staff, psychiatrist Dr. David
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Houlihan"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who seems to have subscribed substantial amounts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "opiates" and "bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouthed" those who "bad mouthed" him. But all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complaints seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to come from non-medically qualified people. i.e., not other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doctors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the staff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to argue right or wrong, but I wonder what the patients
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dead ones didn't have much to add. It seems, as with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indian Health Service pederasts, that management knew they
>>>>>>>>>>>> had a problem but between civil service rules and general
>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardice, did nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Indian Health? I thought it was  a VA Hospital (:-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But as I said, did anyone ask the patients? Or the patients
>>>>>>>>>>> families?
>>>>>>>>>>> Not really an argument but what was the result of this "excess
>>>>>>>>>>> medication" to the patient or his or her's family?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes the article mentions "overdose" but an "overdose" is "more
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> the prescribed dose", is it not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, more to the point, read the actual I.G. Report. It reads
>>>>>>>>>>> to me,
>>>>>>>>>>> at least, like a bunch of disgruntled pharmacist who made a
>>>>>>>>>>> loud noise
>>>>>>>>>>> about what the doctor was prescribing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, more to the point, the Summations and Conclusions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>>>> state:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "We did not substantiate the majority of the allegations ,made
>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> various complaints received... and... "Although allegations
>>>>>>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>>>>>>> with overuse of narcotics at the facility may have some merit
>>>>>>>>>>> they do
>>>>>>>>>>> not constitute evidence of wrongdoing. We did not find any
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusive
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence affirming criminal activity, gross clinical
>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence or
>>>>>>>>>>> negligence or administrative practices illegal or violated
>>>>>>>>>>> personnel
>>>>>>>>>>> policies".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's what DVA says :
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.disabledveterans.org/2015/02/25/wisconsin-va-opioid-scandal-hits-national-news/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, I read that and there is a certain amount of "Oh My God!
>>>>>>>>> Ain't It
>>>>>>>>> Awful!" written there. One Veteran was described as " taking
>>>>>>>>> over one
>>>>>>>>> dozen drugs" Oh! My! Goodness!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But right now, today, I am taking 9 pills in the morning, 3 after
>>>>>>>>> supper and 2 before I go to bed at night. For 3 different physical
>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, more to the point, has anyone asked the patients what they
>>>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>>> Or their parents, wife, etc?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know the particulars but it garnered a lot of
>>>>>>>> attention at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, these things often do. I read AlJazeera news which seems to
>>>>>>> report facts but usually presents them in a very partial manner. I
>>>>>>> read about The U.S. saying hat they wouldn't buy crude from Russia.
>>>>>>> The news articles made it sound like this would be a major
>>>>>>> happening -
>>>>>>> "We'll get them Ruskies!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I did a bit of research and the amount of oil the U.S. gets from
>>>>>>> Russia is a tiny percentage of what the U.S. uses or what the
>>>>>>> Russians
>>>>>>> produce. So the threat seems to be largely "something for the News".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor are there stops on cash flows in or out of Russia and
>>>>>> Russian banks. The radio news just replays the 45-1/2th
>>>>>> President blathering about 'severe sanctions' which isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added to that I just read that Germany refused to have anything to do
>>>>> with The U.S. fuel scheme. And, I suspect that the rest of Europe will
>>>>> follow. See
>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201743/russian-gas-dependence-in-europe-by-country/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the EU-wide decision was to reduce volumes by 2/3 this year
>>>> and go down to zero within 5 years.  This was aligned with the US.
>>>>
>>>> It's a difficult decision whether it's better to buy oil from Inran,
>>>> Russia or Venezuela (supposedly the Iran sanctions were about to be
>>>> lifted but with the invasion, Russia blocked their part of the deal).
>>>
>>> My reference was to natural gas and how can Germany, for example, that
>>> now gets something like half of the gas they use from Russian going to
>>> reduce that to zero? Buy it from the U.S. at much higher
>>> transportation cost then the Russian pipeline(s)?
>>
>> I guess it's similar with oil, gas (also coal and uranium).  Stopping
>> completely at no notice will kill the economy, weaning off as you
>> organize other sources is a possibility.  Germany is not the only major
>> European country relying on Ruassin gas, Italy has been just as
>> dependent (several smaller countries are even 100% dependent on Russian
>> gas).
>> With an optimistic weather assumption, the German gas piles should get
>> us through September or October, we need new sources (Quatar? Iran? Coal
>> from Australia at double the price?) by then.  For Electricity
>> generation, there's a certain amount of flexibility which fuels we burn.
>>
>> Rolf
>
>I'm wondering if Germany will reconsider its rejection of nuclear power.

On 3/14/2022 4:52 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:17:16 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/14/2022 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2022 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of these fires are NOT accidental but from deliberate sabotage.
>>>>>> There is natural gas that is vented downwind so all someone has to
>>>>>> do is approach in the dead of night
>>>>>
>>>>> Baloney. Natural gas is lighter than air and will rise. If the
>>>>> leaking gas column is at the water line, the gas will rapidly diffuse
>>>>> to a concentration less than the 5 to 15% fuel/air mixture needed for
>>>>> combustion. Your hypothetical midnight arsonist would need to capture
>>>>> some of the leaking gas, mix it with the optimum stoichiometric volume
>>>>> of air, and ignite the mix without becoming a suicide bomber. Even
>>>>> so, the resulting explosion would probably not ignite the surrounding
>>>>> gas.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - often in these privately funded mini-submarines and light this
>>>>>> vented gas. If you look at the reports of the investigations of
>>>>>> these fires there are very few other explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got any links to examples of mini-subs and mysterious oil platform
>>>>> fires? I found a few accusations of sabotage, but no real evidence or
>>>>> convictions. Also, no mention of mini-submarines:
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+platform+fire+sabotage>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 15 mins wasted while eating a late dinner ]
>>>>>
>>>> With a long history of rank incompetence, corruption and
>>>> political placements in management,PEMEX is not new to these
>>>> problems.
>>>
>>> You don't light the place you are living on fire with no fast escape no matter how incompetent you are, Jeff shows that as being physically crippled, he is mentally crippled. The molar weight of air is 28 and that of natural gas is 25. This difference is so slight that it easily blows downwind and is largely dispersed before rising due to that slight weight difference. What sort of ignorance he has is displayed with every posting.
>>>
>> PEMEX has suffered four major platform fires in the same new
>> Gulf field in just over a year. (in the US portion of it,
>> we've been producing for several years) PEMEX just do not
>> have the skill set for this work.
> Do you want to tell Mexico that they can't drill for oil in their own national waters? Tell them they are too stupid to be able to do this sort of thing.
>

I'm not telling Mr Obrador or Mexicans generally, anything.

It's fairly obvious that after voiding US production
contracts, they are screwed. PEMEX does not have the
requisite skill set.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:45:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2022 4:52 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:17:16 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2022 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2022 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of these fires are NOT accidental but from deliberate sabotage.
>>>>>>> There is natural gas that is vented downwind so all someone has to
>>>>>>> do is approach in the dead of night
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Baloney. Natural gas is lighter than air and will rise. If the
>>>>>> leaking gas column is at the water line, the gas will rapidly diffuse
>>>>>> to a concentration less than the 5 to 15% fuel/air mixture needed for
>>>>>> combustion. Your hypothetical midnight arsonist would need to capture
>>>>>> some of the leaking gas, mix it with the optimum stoichiometric volume
>>>>>> of air, and ignite the mix without becoming a suicide bomber. Even
>>>>>> so, the resulting explosion would probably not ignite the surrounding
>>>>>> gas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - often in these privately funded mini-submarines and light this
>>>>>>> vented gas. If you look at the reports of the investigations of
>>>>>>> these fires there are very few other explanations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got any links to examples of mini-subs and mysterious oil platform
>>>>>> fires? I found a few accusations of sabotage, but no real evidence or
>>>>>> convictions. Also, no mention of mini-submarines:
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+platform+fire+sabotage>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 15 mins wasted while eating a late dinner ]
>>>>>>
>>>>> With a long history of rank incompetence, corruption and
>>>>> political placements in management,PEMEX is not new to these
>>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> You don't light the place you are living on fire with no fast escape no matter how incompetent you are, Jeff shows that as being physically crippled, he is mentally crippled. The molar weight of air is 28 and that of natural gas is 25. This difference is so slight that it easily blows downwind and is largely dispersed before rising due to that slight weight difference. What sort of ignorance he has is displayed with every posting.
>>>>
>>> PEMEX has suffered four major platform fires in the same new
>>> Gulf field in just over a year. (in the US portion of it,
>>> we've been producing for several years) PEMEX just do not
>>> have the skill set for this work.
>> Do you want to tell Mexico that they can't drill for oil in their own national waters? Tell them they are too stupid to be able to do this sort of thing.
>>
>
>I'm not telling Mr Obrador or Mexicans generally, anything.
>
>It's fairly obvious that after voiding US production
>contracts, they are screwed. PEMEX does not have the
>requisite skill set.

I doubt that it is "skill set" per se. I'm guessing, but I would
expect that PEMEX probably drills as many feet a day as most any other
contractors.

But, perhaps a bit lax in safety procedures?

On the other hand some of their recent problems seem to be caused by a
leaking pipeline hardly unique problem restricted to Mexico.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 4:52 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:17:16 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/14/2022 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 3/13/2022 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Most of these fires are NOT accidental but from deliberate sabotage.
> >>>>>> There is natural gas that is vented downwind so all someone has to
> >>>>>> do is approach in the dead of night
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Baloney. Natural gas is lighter than air and will rise. If the
> >>>>> leaking gas column is at the water line, the gas will rapidly diffuse
> >>>>> to a concentration less than the 5 to 15% fuel/air mixture needed for
> >>>>> combustion. Your hypothetical midnight arsonist would need to capture
> >>>>> some of the leaking gas, mix it with the optimum stoichiometric volume
> >>>>> of air, and ignite the mix without becoming a suicide bomber. Even
> >>>>> so, the resulting explosion would probably not ignite the surrounding
> >>>>> gas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - often in these privately funded mini-submarines and light this
> >>>>>> vented gas. If you look at the reports of the investigations of
> >>>>>> these fires there are very few other explanations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Got any links to examples of mini-subs and mysterious oil platform
> >>>>> fires? I found a few accusations of sabotage, but no real evidence or
> >>>>> convictions. Also, no mention of mini-submarines:
> >>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+platform+fire+sabotage>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ 15 mins wasted while eating a late dinner ]
> >>>>>
> >>>> With a long history of rank incompetence, corruption and
> >>>> political placements in management,PEMEX is not new to these
> >>>> problems.
> >>>
> >>> You don't light the place you are living on fire with no fast escape no matter how incompetent you are, Jeff shows that as being physically crippled, he is mentally crippled. The molar weight of air is 28 and that of natural gas is 25. This difference is so slight that it easily blows downwind and is largely dispersed before rising due to that slight weight difference. What sort of ignorance he has is displayed with every posting.
> >>>
> >> PEMEX has suffered four major platform fires in the same new
> >> Gulf field in just over a year. (in the US portion of it,
> >> we've been producing for several years) PEMEX just do not
> >> have the skill set for this work.
> > Do you want to tell Mexico that they can't drill for oil in their own national waters? Tell them they are too stupid to be able to do this sort of thing.
> >
> I'm not telling Mr Obrador or Mexicans generally, anything.
>
> It's fairly obvious that after voiding US production
> contracts, they are screwed. PEMEX does not have the
> requisite skill set.

And what skill set might that be? As I said, people don't burn down places where they are living. They are quite careful about this. The intelligence of people working these rigs is above average. They know a hell of a lot more about the dangers of fire on a place you can't escape than you might think.

They know unlike that idiot Jeff, that natural gas does not rise in any kind of wind conditions. And that the air/fuel mixture can be explosive for quite a way downwind. When you see a lot of fires on oil/gas rigs the intelligent thing to think of first is sabotage. Natural gas in particular is extremely dangerous and to suggest that PEMEX workers aren't bright enough to know this is rather insulting.

I might add that the PEMEX accidents I've heard of were the normal things that can occur in refineries and the people killed were workers that lived directly adjacent to the facility. This appears to be the one difference between the explosions at PEMEX and Mobil in Texas. https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-massive-explosion-at-texas-exxonmobil-refinery-injures-several where people are not allowed to live within 15 miles or so. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explosion-huge-louisiana-refinery-minor-injuries-83049193 https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-us-oil-refinery-explodes-enormous-inferno-seen-miles-away/

I could continue but oil refining is a dangerous occupation and every refinery in this country has suffered explosions and fires at one time of another. So this is not a peculiarity of PEMEX

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And what skill set might that be? As I said, people don't burn down
>> places where they are living. They are quite careful about this. The
>> intelligence of people working these rigs is above average. They
>> know a hell of a lot more about the dangers of fire on a place you
>> can't escape than you might think.
>>
>>They know unlike that idiot Jeff, that natural gas does not rise in
>> any kind of wind conditions. And that the air/fuel mixture can be
>> explosive for quite a way downwind. When you see a lot of fires on
>> oil/gas rigs the intelligent thing to think of first is
>> sabotage. Natural gas in particular is extremely dangerous and to
>> suggest that PEMEX workers aren't bright enough to know this is
>> rather insulting.
>>
>>I might add that the PEMEX accidents I've heard of were the normal
>> things that can occur in refineries and the people killed were
>> workers that lived directly adjacent to the facility. This appears
>> to be the one difference between the explosions at PEMEX and Mobil
>> in
>> Texas. https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-massive-explosion-at-texas-exxonmobil-refinery-injures-several
>> where people are not allowed to live within 15 miles or
>> so. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explosion-huge-louisiana-refinery-minor-injuries-83049193
>> https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-us-oil-refinery-explodes-enormous-inferno-seen-miles-away/
>>
>>I could continue but oil refining is a dangerous occupation and every
>> refinery in this country has suffered explosions and fires at one
>> time of another. So this is not a peculiarity of PEMEX
>
> Wrong (as usual):
>
> 1. Natural gas (methane) is not "refined" at an oil refinery. It is
> pumped directly from the ground, processed, sometimes cryogenically
> compressed, sometimes stored, and eventually delivered through
> pipelines:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas_processing>

Natural gas is fractionally distilled in, wait for it, gas plants.
Selling "high BTU" gas, that is, gas with significant ethane, propane,
and butane, as natural gas makes customers unhappy because it spits and
pops in their stoves, and it makes producers unhappy because they're
selling it for less than they can.

> 2. Oil refineries extract various hydrocarbon compounds from crude oil
> by fractional distillation. Most of those distillation products are
> heavier than air. Notice that methane is not on the list of
> distillation products:
> <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=6970>

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Crude frequently has a significant methane
content, which is one reason it's such a firefighting nightmare --
imagine mentos and Coke, only really flammable. If there isn't enough
to compress and sell it's used as fuel in the plant.

> I can make a list of heavier the air distillation products if you
> want. However, I'm a bit busy and have a dentist appointment this
> afternoon (to sharpen my fangs in anticipation of the full moon
> festivities on Friday). I forgot to mention that I'm not a witch. I'm
> a werewolf:
> <http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt> (Nov 1997)

--

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:17:13 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>And what skill set might that be? As I said, people don't burn down
> >> places where they are living. They are quite careful about this. The
> >> intelligence of people working these rigs is above average. They
> >> know a hell of a lot more about the dangers of fire on a place you
> >> can't escape than you might think.
> >>
> >>They know unlike that idiot Jeff, that natural gas does not rise in
> >> any kind of wind conditions. And that the air/fuel mixture can be
> >> explosive for quite a way downwind. When you see a lot of fires on
> >> oil/gas rigs the intelligent thing to think of first is
> >> sabotage. Natural gas in particular is extremely dangerous and to
> >> suggest that PEMEX workers aren't bright enough to know this is
> >> rather insulting.
> >>
> >>I might add that the PEMEX accidents I've heard of were the normal
> >> things that can occur in refineries and the people killed were
> >> workers that lived directly adjacent to the facility. This appears
> >> to be the one difference between the explosions at PEMEX and Mobil
> >> in
> >> Texas. https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-massive-explosion-at-texas-exxonmobil-refinery-injures-several
> >> where people are not allowed to live within 15 miles or
> >> so. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explosion-huge-louisiana-refinery-minor-injuries-83049193
> >> https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-us-oil-refinery-explodes-enormous-inferno-seen-miles-away/
> >>
> >>I could continue but oil refining is a dangerous occupation and every
> >> refinery in this country has suffered explosions and fires at one
> >> time of another. So this is not a peculiarity of PEMEX
> >
> > Wrong (as usual):
> >
> > 1. Natural gas (methane) is not "refined" at an oil refinery. It is
> > pumped directly from the ground, processed, sometimes cryogenically
> > compressed, sometimes stored, and eventually delivered through
> > pipelines:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas_processing>
> Natural gas is fractionally distilled in, wait for it, gas plants.
> Selling "high BTU" gas, that is, gas with significant ethane, propane,
> and butane, as natural gas makes customers unhappy because it spits and
> pops in their stoves, and it makes producers unhappy because they're
> selling it for less than they can.
> > 2. Oil refineries extract various hydrocarbon compounds from crude oil
> > by fractional distillation. Most of those distillation products are
> > heavier than air. Notice that methane is not on the list of
> > distillation products:
> > <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=6970>
> Sorry, but that's nonsense. Crude frequently has a significant methane
> content, which is one reason it's such a firefighting nightmare --
> imagine mentos and Coke, only really flammable. If there isn't enough
> to compress and sell it's used as fuel in the plant.
> > I can make a list of heavier the air distillation products if you
> > want. However, I'm a bit busy and have a dentist appointment this
> > afternoon (to sharpen my fangs in anticipation of the full moon
> > festivities on Friday). I forgot to mention that I'm not a witch. I'm
> > a werewolf:
> > <http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt> (Nov 1997)

I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.

What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?

This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:38:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>
>What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>
It's just one of Tommy's fantasies. He wrote about the cheap revolvers
that caused 2nd degree burns when fired and I challenged hum to give
an example and he quieted down for a while. Now he is on about the
T.V. (:-)

Actually the two handed "Weaver stance" was popularized by a bloke
named "Jack Weaver" (strangely enough) although it obviously had been
used for many years prior. As Weaver developed his method back in the
1950's when the usually "police Pistol" was a revolver the system must
have worked with revolvers.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>
> What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>
> This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>

Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:

https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
> >
> > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
> >
> > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
> >
> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>
> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png

Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?

On 3/17/2022 9:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>>>
>>> What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>>>
>>> This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>>>
>> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
>> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>>
>> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
>
> Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
>

Teakettles are hot enough to burn fingers.
As are exhaust manifolds and freshly brazed bicycle frame
joints.

I don't touch those either.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>> >
>> > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>> >
>> > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>> >
>> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
>> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>>
>> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
>
>Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?

Actually Tommy, that gas escaping from the cylinder to barrel junction
is really a minor danger. Try holding the revolver by the barrel with
your thumb over the end. Now, that will give you some real problems.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google.. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
> > >
> > > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
> > >
> > > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
> > >
> > Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
> > Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
> >
> > https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
> Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?

You will have to repost your link to the revolvers being shot and the gas escaping where the barrel and cylinder meet.

But, why oh why would you have your hand and fingers at that spot? Most people, when using two hands to grip a revolver, have one hand on the grip, and the other hand is wrapped over top of the hand on the grip. Like if you made a fist and used your other hand to grab your fist. Unless you have Andre the Giant sized hands, the support hand is not going to be anywhere near the barrel/cylinder gap. I suppose if you had really long fingers, and pulled the trigger with your middle finger, you could stick your pointer finger out far enough to cover the barrel/cylinder gap. But you really have to work at it to burn your hand when shooting a revolver. I am not saying you cannot do it. Afterall, there is a Tommy in every group who will do the dumbest things on earth just to show the world that he can do really stupid things.

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:43:59 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
> >> >
> >> > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
> >> >
> >> > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
> >> >
> >> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
> >> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
> >>
> >> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
> >
> >Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
> Actually Tommy, that gas escaping from the cylinder to barrel junction
> is really a minor danger. Try holding the revolver by the barrel with
> your thumb over the end. Now, that will give you some real problems.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Just once. Then its all clear sailing from then on.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:10:26 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:43:59 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>> >> >
>> >> > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>> >> >
>> >> > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
>> >> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>> >>
>> >> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
>> >
>> >Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
>> Actually Tommy, that gas escaping from the cylinder to barrel junction
>> is really a minor danger. Try holding the revolver by the barrel with
>> your thumb over the end. Now, that will give you some real problems.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Just once. Then its all clear sailing from then on.

Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men...

I was waiting for Tommy to say something like that and I was going to
reply.

Exactly!

(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 9:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google.. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
> >>>
> >>> What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
> >>>
> >>> This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
> >>>
> >> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
> >> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
> >>
> >> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
> >
> > Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
> >
> Teakettles are hot enough to burn fingers.
> As are exhaust manifolds and freshly brazed bicycle frame
> joints.
>
> I don't touch those either.
Yes, but you're intelligent. The "Five" here are the ones for which the command to read the instructions are for. Most people would never think of shooting a revolver with two hands and with their off hand up near the base of the barrel. But obviously there are Russells and Flunkys and Scharfs enough that they have to print instructions on the gun itself. I just wanted to make the point that there are people that don't know how to shoot a gun, and they are common enough to read their talking, about how you can't get hurt by the blow-by. What I was surprised at was John who was in the service claiming that he knew how to shoot and then saying that you couldn't get hurt from red hot explosive gas escaping at combustion pressures from a narrow crack. You recall that even Frank thought it was his turn to get in on that and he thinks that guns are so dangerous only cops and the military should be allowed to have one around.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>> > >
>> > > What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>> > >
>> > > This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>> > >
>> > Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
>> > Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>> >
>> > https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
>> Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
>
>You will have to repost your link to the revolvers being shot and the gas escaping where the barrel and cylinder meet.
>
>But, why oh why would you have your hand and fingers at that spot? Most people, when using two hands to grip a revolver, have one hand on the grip, and the other hand is wrapped over top of the hand on the grip. Like if you made a fist and used your other hand to grab your fist. Unless you have Andre the Giant sized hands, the support hand is not going to be anywhere near the barrel/cylinder gap. I suppose if you had really long fingers, and pulled the trigger with your middle finger, you could stick your pointer finger out far enough to cover the barrel/cylinder gap. But you really have to work at it to burn your hand when shooting a revolver. I am not saying you cannot do it. Afterall, there is a Tommy in every group who will do the dumbest things on earth just to show the world that he can do really stupid things.

Frank has come up with the argument that people buy "assault rifles"
to make themselves look manly, like a soldier.

Perhaps Tommy has come up with the argument that people hold a
revolver so that they can burn their hands and look manly?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 9:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/2022 1:38 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:01:41 AM UTC-5, cyc..@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> I'm afraid that as a cripple and never having done anything that inquiring individuals do, Jeff has turned himself into another John and gets all of what he believes to be his very intelligent conversations from Google. Remember when I said that you had to know how to shoot a revolver or you could burn your hands and all of the people who know nothing at all about guns including John said that wasn't possible? I was in the local gun shop looking at .357 revolvers yesterday and etched into the frame of several of the new pistols was "Read owners manual before using". I asked what the hell that was all about and he said that people are trying to shoot these things like they see on TV and are burning themselves. I think that people that like to pretend knowledge that they don't have are easily exposed for the idiots they are.
>> >>>
>> >>> What television show did you watch where they were shooting a revolver wrong so you would burn your hand? Your secondary support hand. The only way to burn your hand shooting a revolver is if you grab the barrel, ahead of the cylinder. I've watched a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the 1970s, and police shows from the 1950s through the 1970s (when the cops used S&W and Colt six guns). Never ever seen a show where the shooter grabbed the barrel ahead of the cylinder and burned himself. Tommy, is your imagination acting up again?
>> >>>
>> >>> This topic was discussed in a prior thread. Burning your support hand is why revolver rifles failed. Your extra support hand is on the barrel, rifle forearm, ahead of the cylinder where the fired shell will shoot hot gases through the tiny gap between the revolver cylinder and barrel.
>> >>>
>> >> Yes, that risk is astronomically unlikely but apparently
>> >> Californians chew on their ammo so their pistols need these:
>> >>
>> >> https://decalfactory.com/images/gallery-prop-65-1-1200.png
>> >
>> > Didn't I refer you to a video of a test of six different .357's where you could plainly see the powder flash escaping from the cylinder/barrel interface? Exactly what would lead you to believe that to be harmless?
>> >
>> Teakettles are hot enough to burn fingers.
>> As are exhaust manifolds and freshly brazed bicycle frame
>> joints.
>>
>> I don't touch those either.
>Yes, but you're intelligent. The "Five" here are the ones for which the command to read the instructions are for. Most people would never think of shooting a revolver with two hands and with their off hand up near the base of the barrel. But obviously there are Russells and Flunkys and Scharfs enough that they have to print instructions on the gun itself. I just wanted to make the point that there are people that don't know how to shoot a gun, and they are common enough to read their talking, about how you can't get hurt by the blow-by. What I was surprised at was John who was in the service claiming that he knew how to shoot and then saying that you couldn't get hurt from red hot explosive gas escaping at combustion pressures from a narrow crack. You recall that even Frank thought it was his turn to get in on that and he thinks that guns are so dangerous only cops and the military should be allowed to have one around.

No Tommy, nobody that knows anything about shooting does not hold a
revolver in such a manner as to burn their hands...

What you are arguing is that some dumb ass might hold a revolver in
such a manner as to burn their hand which is probably true. But then
some people are so dumb as to try and drive nails with the handle end
of the hammer.

In fact - I'm guessing here - you may be one of the dumb ass that
burned his hand shooting a revolver and that's why you are arguing so
vehemently.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 4:39:39 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The "Five" here are the ones for which the command to read the instructions are for. Most people would never think of shooting a revolver with two hands and with their off hand up near the base of the barrel. But obviously there are Russells and Flunkys and Scharfs enough that they have to print instructions on the gun itself. I just wanted to make the point that there are people that don't know how to shoot a gun, and they are common enough to read their talking, about how you can't get hurt by the blow-by. What I was surprised at was John who was in the service claiming that he knew how to shoot and then saying that you couldn't get hurt from red hot explosive gas escaping at combustion pressures from a narrow crack. You recall that even Frank thought it was his turn to get in on that and he thinks that guns are so dangerous only cops and the military should be allowed to have one around.

I don't believe John or anyone else said it's impossible to get hurt by gas escaping that gap. I think what everyone (myself
included) disputed was your claim that it's a frequent cause of injury. One reason is that almost nobody holds a revolver
that way. I've shot them only a few times, but I've never been tempted to hold a revolver that way. It's just not
natural. It's just not done. And if someone was clueless enough to do it, they'd probably say "Ouch" and not do it again.
Only in Tom's mind is this some huge problem.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 20:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 4:39:39 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The "Five" here are the ones for which the command to read the instructions are for. Most people would never think of shooting a revolver with two hands and with their off hand up near the base of the barrel. But obviously there are Russells and Flunkys and Scharfs enough that they have to print instructions on the gun itself. I just wanted to make the point that there are people that don't know how to shoot a gun, and they are common enough to read their talking, about how you can't get hurt by the blow-by. What I was surprised at was John who was in the service claiming that he knew how to shoot and then saying that you couldn't get hurt from red hot explosive gas escaping at combustion pressures from a narrow crack. You recall that even Frank thought it was his turn to get in on that and he thinks that guns are so dangerous only cops and the military should be allowed to have one around.
>
>I don't believe John or anyone else said it's impossible to get hurt by gas escaping that gap. I think what everyone (myself
>included) disputed was your claim that it's a frequent cause of injury. One reason is that almost nobody holds a revolver
>that way. I've shot them only a few times, but I've never been tempted to hold a revolver that way. It's just not
>natural. It's just not done. And if someone was clueless enough to do it, they'd probably say "Ouch" and not do it again.
>Only in Tom's mind is this some huge problem.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Well... I've been around firearms, including revolvers, since I was 12
years old and was a competitive pistol target shooters for at least 10
years, shot in a great many pistol target matches, shot with police
officers that used revolvers as their service pistol, and, and. and.

And in all that time I never once saw anyone get burned shooting a
revolver.

However, we've all seen those decals on bike forks saying "Failure to
close this quick release may cause loss of the wheel" and the signs on
ladders saying, "Failure to use this device correctly may cause injury
or loss of life" and wondered who could be so stupid NOT to close the
quick release or FALL off a ladder....

But now we read Tom's post and Lo and Behold! There he stands!
--
Cheers,

John B.