BAN THE STONES BOMBS

I wanted the OP to make sure all the implications of the statement were
understood.

....and posting this was?

So you got what I was saying, yet don't disagree with the point? Gosh,
first time for everything!

Hammo

 

I disagree!

 

Yeah. Mini-Mental Exam. A quick diagnostic used to assess the mental
status of a person. Problem with it is that responses can be learnt and it
becomes ineffective. Always keep a few questions that are not "the
standard" up your sleeve to gauge responses. Some would argue that that
deviates from the MME, so it's not relevant. However, if someone has had a
decreased level of consciousness (LOC) and this had the potential to or
resulted in a significant change to the Glascow Coma Scores (GCS), then
asking if "banana is a day of the week and it used to sit on" may gain
insight into the functioning of the person [1]. Here you could say it
reflects also on the one asking the questions, and both would be valid.

OK. Firstly there was a call to ban all flammable liquids (and the playing
with them).

Problem is, where do you draw the line? If you call for ALL flammable (and
yes that includes inflammable as there is no difference, 'cept for the
name), you'll make the rally scene a great deal different. Why? ...and
that was my point. You are including ethanol in that ban. If that was the
point of the OP, then they can run away and live in a small house on a hill
in a dark room with no electricity and use the banana as a chair, whilst
amending the calendar to their own way of thinking.

Hammo
[1] This is a reference to fruit and not the lounge/recliner. The latter
would indicate that the person has word association skills, yet it does not
explain the day being Banana, unless it is also the same month a banana
festival is one and that is referred to as "banana day". This highlights
the inadequacies of the MME and shows why subjective assessment is not to
good. It is also unlikely that this response would occur discretely in one
question.

 

You don't throw them.

Al

 

Not only do I understand all of that, I agree with it all. It does not
match my guess as to what your original point may have been, so I will add
that to the debate.

I thought you meant something along these lines:

I suspect the organisers of the rallies have no more influence on whether
someone plans to ignite a stones bomb than they do on the brand of petrol
purchased by rally goes on their respective journeys to the respective
rallies. Therefore calling on the rallies to not sanction these things is
rather pointless. The fact that these things are ignited at rallies is
something idividuals do, not 'sanctioned' by the rally organisers. (I may
be wrong on this point, as I have not actually been to a rally, and I am
aware that certain event organisers do actively encourage the bonfire
itself).

However, encouraging a bonfire is _not_ the same thing as sanctioning
explosive devices. The wrongful actions of an individual can not always be
linked to the organisers of the function.

Having said that, I have heard no mention of criminal charges along the
lines of 'commit a dangerous act resulting in actual bodily harm' or
something to that effect. Others are no doubt more qualified than I to
comment on that matter.

I also applaud the suggestion of prizes to be awarded in the event of _no_
detonations, and it provides positive incentive for negative peer pressure.
Whether linking individuals stupidity to the 'event' can be successfully
achieved is yet to be seen.

P
And no, I don't know where to draw the line, commonsense, as we know is
neither common, nor sensible.

 

Dis information - and sometimes dat information over dere.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
Before an accident, most city drivers say "****!", whereas most country drivers
say "Hang on to this stubby, mate, while I show you some awesome driving"
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

No I wouldn't!

Actually, I disagree with myself, yeah I would. ;-)

 

Bullshit!

 

Not really, I doubt many rally goers are bringing beverages that have a
high enough alcohol concentration to actually burn. What's the required
% concentration ? About 40%+ isn't it ?

JL

 

Setting aside pointless arguments about what is actually 'burning' (add
that to the 'flammable' vs 'inflammable' debate), you're largely right.
Most neat spirits are around 40% ethanol and can be persuaded to burn if
a modest amount of heat is applied. You need a lot of oxygen, though,
and putting a half on Johnnie Walker into the fire shouldn't do much at
all (not that I've tried it).

In any event, why waste any energy debating the products to ban? Don't
you just ban the practice of making petrol bombs rather than the use of
petrol?

 

Really? So flammable now becomes / means "of a given flash point"?

Hammo

 

Cos that's not what was proclaimed. Do try and keep up!

Hammo

PS, your claim above, all bullshit (apologies to Penn and Teller).

 

I'm not debating it either way, I don't go to rallies, so I couldn't
give a flying **** if people take lumps of C4 or sticks of dynamite. I
was merely taking the pedant to task on a flaw in his pedantry

JL

 

Dunno what language you're using Hammo, but it ain't the same English I am.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flammable

flammable: Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; inflammable.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/flammable?view=uk

flammable adjective: easily set on fire.

If the alcohol in question isn't easily set on fire in the format that
it's been supplied in (ie poured out of the bottle at room(1)
temperature) without resorting to distilling the ethanol out of it then
it's not really a particularly flammable object is it ? Hardly comes
under the definition of a banned flammable object, does it ? I mean sure
if you send it into the heart of the sun it will burst into flames, but
so will iron...

JL

(1) aka cold windy rally paddock

 

Probably gets down to whether the substance is classified dg's

in the case of alcoholic beverages then it's not and therefore okay to take

ck

 

Don't get him angry or he'll rip into you

 

<sigh> Point well made.

JL

 

Perhaps, I should call you, Evan?

Hammo

 

You're English too? Great!

Oh, come on, you've just claimed to never be a rally goer, so how would you
know what gets consumed there? [2].

Really? I must have missed that school excursion.

I was the one who didn't want it banned! I pointed out (allegedly
cryptically) that it would be necessary to clarify which flammable liquids
were banned. I picked grog as an easy point. I could go on.....

I am also surprised that a frequent international flyer like yourself isn't
aware of the restrictions that are covered by "flammable liquids".[3].

[2]

Hammo
[3] more rules!

 

You may of course call me whatever you wish, I can't stop you. The
reference however eludes me.

JL
(I rarely watch TV so if it's a game show host or something you've lost
me already)