wrote:
Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that

it

did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.







Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that

it

did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.







Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.

At least, Harry, he's something. Without b'asskisser, what would you be?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


wrote:

Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that

it


did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.






Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.


At least, Harry, he's something. Without b'asskisser, what would you be?

John H

\\


Still the owner of a boat you covet...

.... but you don't own the boat you covet, nor are you married to the wife
you covet. Life must suck when you are Harry.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:30 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:


wrote:

Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you
will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four
liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm
that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve
agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said
Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates.
"So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added
that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in
them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier
between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell
did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the
mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read.
The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm
that

it


did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve
agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.






Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.


At least, Harry, he's something. Without b'asskisser, what would you be?

John H

\\


Still the owner of a boat you covet...

"John Smith" wrote in message news:Stbrc.365$ny.430273@attbi_s53...
... but you don't own the boat you covet, nor are you married to the wife
you covet. Life must suck when you are Harry.

There you go, presenting wild assumptions as fact again. So, because
you ARE presenting such as fact, let's see difinitive proof of your
outlandish allegations.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Stbrc.365$ny.430273@attbi_s53...
... but you don't own the boat you covet, nor are you married to the
wife
you covet. Life must suck when you are Harry.

There you go, presenting wild assumptions as fact again. So, because
you ARE presenting such as fact, let's see difinitive proof of your
outlandish allegations.

Everyone just leave Harry alone. With basskisser's head so far up Harry's
ass, it's hard for either of them to think clearly.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message . com...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Stbrc.365$ny.430273@attbi_s53...
... but you don't own the boat you covet, nor are you married to the
wife
you covet. Life must suck when you are Harry.

There you go, presenting wild assumptions as fact again. So, because
you ARE presenting such as fact, let's see difinitive proof of your
outlandish allegations.

Everyone just leave Harry alone. With basskisser's head so far up Harry's
ass, it's hard for either of them to think clearly.

Why do you say that, Jack? Do you have something against someone, such
as I, who would love to see the facts that would make someone think as
Jack does? Wouldn't YOU like to see where he gets his information?

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:44:00 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Stbrc.365$ny.430273@attbi_s53...
... but you don't own the boat you covet, nor are you married to the
wife
you covet. Life must suck when you are Harry.

There you go, presenting wild assumptions as fact again. So, because
you ARE presenting such as fact, let's see difinitive proof of your
outlandish allegations.

Everyone just leave Harry alone. With basskisser's head so far up Harry's
ass, it's hard for either of them to think clearly.



Jack, for shame. Did you ever think that maybe b'asskisser is just checking out
Harry's tonsils, from the backside?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:38 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


wrote:

Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...


I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that

it


did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.






Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.


At least, Harry, he's something. Without b'asskisser, what would you be?

John H

\\


Still the owner of a boat you covet...

Nope. I've changed my mind about cabins on boats.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:38 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:



wrote:


Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that

from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them

would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...



I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that

it



did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.






Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.


At least, Harry, he's something. Without b'asskisser, what would you be?

John H


\\


Still the owner of a boat you covet...


Nope. I've changed my mind about cabins on boats.

John H

I thought it was Mrs. Herring who liked the idea of a full-headroom
cabin on a boat. I think you said that to me last year at the marina.
But maybe not.