Will Corn become a subatitute for Heating Oil?
Chris Harper a.k.a. Guido
News wrote:
> "M Russon" <mru...@acer-access.com> wrote in message
> news:3ad5fe22...@news.acer-access.com...
>
> > >> You have a good point... Urban sprawl/development is chewing up
> > >> thousands of acres of farmland a year. We don't even have to
> > >> calculate nutrition loss, just project the number of years before urban
> > >> sprawl and shopping malls/ amusement parks paves over it.
> > >
> > > In a country the size of the USA so-called
> > > "urban sprawl" is NOT a problem.
> > > In fact "urban sprawl" is only a problem in
> > > a few places in the world, the
> > > US and UK are not affected.
> >
> > You obviously have not been to my home town
> > where 130,000 people moved in within the last
> > 12 months, and we are slated for 7000 new homes
> > within a 2 year period.......it's sprawling here.,,,,
>
> Those figures are meaningless to me as they need to be put into context. As
> long as there is enough space between houses and adequate open spaces there
> is no problem. In the UK they have guidelines that where there is a certain
> amount of homes open park space has to be incorporated. Are you a NIMBY?
>
> The US is underpopulated to most of the world and you have the freedom to
> build pretty much where you want, unlike here in the UK. You also have
> decent sized plots, unlike here where we shoehorn small houses into very
> small plots. If you think you are hemmed in, come and look at the crammed
> urban areas here, and we don't have a shortage of land either, despite being
> little ol' England.
Speaking as a Mohave desert USA resident, where most consider way out in "BFE"
and to hot to live in, the sprawl has even hit here. My town's population has
increased from 50 houses to 3700+ in the last 5 years, and word is only now
getting out that there's room around here. Even if the USA is underpopulated
compared to most, the planet in general must be thus massively over populated,
and attention is needed to remedy the problem before critical stages are met.
Scott Willing
"Chris Harper a.k.a. Guido" <NoS...@here.org> wrote in
message news:3C16B7D...@here.org...
No worries Chris. We will probably hit the wall within the
next hundred years. By some fairly credible estimates, world
oil production may peak early in that period as well.
As far as urban sprawl is concerned... ha... haa haa
haaaa... I believe something like 5 cubic meters of topsoil
is lost per person per year in the US. Who cares how much is
paved over when it's all flowing into the ocean? Formed over
millenia, flushed down the crapper in a few decades. Ain't
we clever?
Methinks the problem will remedy itself.
-smw
roue
[various stuff about urban sprawl elided...]
Read "The Ultimate Resource 2", by Julian Simon. It's available
for free on the net. Read with an open mind, it should cure you
of worries about shortages of farmland and overpopulation.
--
Irregardless,
R.
JoelnCaryn
>for free on the net. Read with an open mind, it should cure you
>of worries about shortages of farmland and overpopulation.
Then read E.O. Wilson or any of the other good (read "peer-reviewed") species
biologists, as an exercise. (Wilson's just more likely to have published for
laymen as well as for others in his field.)
--
Caryn
His Jadedness
>
>-smw
One thing we can be sure the future doesn't hold is ancestor worship of *any*
kind- unless, of course, they are bigger fools than we are!
--
His Jadednes, Andy- The Armchair Genealogist
Jade Court Press Office: http://www.voy.com/60692/
"Death to ALL terrorist! Death to ALL supporters of terrorists! Death to ALL
sympathizers of terrorists! Death to the very IDEA of terrorism!"
Scott Willing
"roue" <ro...@merr.com> wrote in message
news:slrna1l1g...@localhost.localdomain...
First, if you think that the "truth" can be found in any
single book, perhaps you'd be better off with one of the
classic religious texts. They also comfort many, or so I'm
told.
Second, am I to ignore the fact that Simon's work is
published by the Cato institute? No agenda there...
Finally, read "The Ingenuity Gap" by Thomas Homer-Dixon
(available for good money from bookstores everywhere) with
an open mind, and it should, at the very least, provide a
little perspective. Or try "Chaos" by James Gleick, or
"Water" by Marq de Villiers.
But hey, whatever gets you through the night.
> --
> Irregardless,
To lend weight to your position, the use of real words is
recommended.
-s
ber...@ami.com.au
out for us. We may be in for a very unpleasant shock when NATURE sorts
us out. NATURE gives not two hoots for us humans. NATURE is entirely
RUTHLESS. We either obey NATURE'S rules which are absolute, or we will
indeed cause our own destruction.
aeolus
roue
<NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>"roue" <ro...@merr.com> wrote in message
>news:slrna1l1g...@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> [various stuff about urban sprawl elided...]
>>
>> Read "The Ultimate Resource 2", by Julian Simon. It's
>available
>> for free on the net. Read with an open mind, it should
>cure you
>> of worries about shortages of farmland and overpopulation.
>
>First, if you think that the "truth" can be found in any
>single book, perhaps you'd be better off with one of the
>classic religious texts. They also comfort many, or so I'm
>told.
I could have suggested a few more, but TUR2 makes a good starting
point. And religious fundamentalists generally do not believe
that "the truth" can be found in any single book, but rather that
"the truth" can be found in ONLY one book, something which I never
suggest.
>Second, am I to ignore the fact that Simon's work is
>published by the Cato institute? No agenda there...
His work was mostly published by a university press; I forget
which one. It has also been published by many other publishers,
much of it in the form of articles in various journals, and of
course, via his own web site. And of course, having an agenda
does not preclude being right. Professor Simon's original agenda
was to gather scholarly evidence to prove that the Earth was
overpopulated, and that fertility must be reduced to avoid
economic and ecological collapse. When he gathered the data and
examined it, he came to believe the opposite. After he published
his findings, his agenda seemed to consist of dealing with the
vicious slanders and smear campaigns launched his was by a few
unscrupulous demagogues calling themselves "environmentalists".
Everybody has an agenda. Some will tell you what theirs is, and
the rest lie about it.
>Finally, read "The Ingenuity Gap" by Thomas Homer-Dixon
>(available for good money from bookstores everywhere) with
>an open mind, and it should, at the very least, provide a
>little perspective. Or try "Chaos" by James Gleick, or
>"Water" by Marq de Villiers.
Or, hey what the heck, "A Wizard of Earthsea", by Ursula K.
LeGuin.
>But hey, whatever gets you through the night.
>
>> --
>> Irregardless,
>
>To lend weight to your position, the use of real words is
>recommended.
>
>-s
What a subtrandeous observation.
--
Irregardless,
R.
Fred A. Murphy
On 15-Dec-2001, "Scott Willing" <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
> > Irregardless,
>
> To lend weight to your position, the use of real words is
> recommended.
So does looking up a word before declaring it's not "real".
--
Keyboard not found, think "F1" to continue.
lpogoda
Fred A. Murphy wrote in message
<28eT7.288$M3.3...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>...
>
>On 15-Dec-2001, "Scott Willing" <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>> > Irregardless,
>>
>> To lend weight to your position, the use of real words is
>> recommended.
>
>So does looking up a word before declaring it's not "real".
>
"irregardless" ranks right up there (or should it be right down there?) with
"where's it at" (instead of "where is it") and "you've got" (for "you have"
or "you must"). Even "ain't" garners more approval.
From the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th
century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of
usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark
about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It
is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to
time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Scott Willing
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:02:38 -0600, Scott Willing
> <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>
> >"roue" <ro...@merr.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrna1l1g...@localhost.localdomain...
> >>
> >> [various stuff about urban sprawl elided...]
> >>
> >> Read "The Ultimate Resource 2", by Julian Simon. It's
> >available
> >> for free on the net. Read with an open mind, it should
> >cure you
> >> of worries about shortages of farmland and
overpopulation.
> >
> >First, if you think that the "truth" can be found in any
> >single book, perhaps you'd be better off with one of the
> >classic religious texts. They also comfort many, or so
I'm
> >told.
>
> I could have suggested a few more, but TUR2 makes a good
starting
> point.
That's a bit of a modification, don't you think? "...it
should cure you..." was the claim, and while I can't refute
this until I've read the book, I still think it's a bit of a
stretch.
> And religious fundamentalists generally do not believe
> that "the truth" can be found in any single book, but
rather that
> "the truth" can be found in ONLY one book, something which
I never
> suggest.
And did you not tell the plaintiff, with respect to the book
in question, "...it should cure you..."? Did you not fail to
inform the plaintiff that additional treatment would be
required to affect a cure which you cannot, in fact, even
guarantee?
> >Second, am I to ignore the fact that Simon's work is
> >published by the Cato institute? No agenda there...
>
> His work was mostly published by a university press; I
forget
> which one. It has also been published by many other
publishers,
> much of it in the form of articles in various journals,
and of
> course, via his own web site. And of course, having an
agenda
> does not preclude being right.
Agreed.
> Professor Simon's original agenda
> was to gather scholarly evidence to prove that the Earth
was
> overpopulated, and that fertility must be reduced to avoid
> economic and ecological collapse. When he gathered the
data and
> examined it, he came to believe the opposite.
I look forward to seeing his comparison of the present
scenario with previous occurrences of human population
reaching the 6 billion level, particularly for cases wherein
a good chunk of the most privileged members of the species
were living a highly-mechanized, non-renewable
resource-dependent lifestyle and concerning themselves
mainly with trivial pursuits.
> After he published
> his findings, his agenda seemed to consist of dealing with
the
> vicious slanders and smear campaigns launched his was by a
few
> unscrupulous demagogues calling themselves
"environmentalists".
OK. I admit to being an expert on... nothing. However, the
conditions we live in today are, to the best of our
knowledge, unprecedented both in terms of human population
and in our ability to stimulate our environment in various
arguably significant ways. (Ask a former east-coast cod
fisher.) From what I've been able to find out, it would
appear that we are only beginning to grasp the
interconnections between things like climate, ocean
currents, biodiversity and so on. (And we'd still rather go
to Mars and rummage about there first. Ah well.)
I'm not one of those folks who think we can "destroy the
earth". I do believe, however, that Biosphere 2 (remember
that?) was a pretty good example of how inadequate current
knowledge of interdependence is. I do believe we can tax the
environment sufficiently - perhaps by force of numbers
alone - and that natural forces can (independently or in
concert) also alter the environment sufficiently, as to make
the earth a much less habitable place for humans. Perhaps
even uninhabitable. To believe otherwise seems an expression
of faith alone and reveal a lack of perspective that may
prove problematic, if not fatal.
But finally, to predict with assurance any particular
outcome - good or bad - is only guesswork, no matter how
educated. Given the state of our collective knowledge, and
the amount of that knowledge that I could conceivably jam
into my tired cranium at once, I can only conclude that the
coin's been tossed, but it hasn't hit the ground yet. Good
luck everyone!
> Everybody has an agenda. Some will tell you what theirs
is, and
> the rest lie about it.
Mine is to explore possibilities and question assumptions.
Best,
-smw
dave...@spamcop.net
> "irregardless" ranks right up there (or should it be right down there?) with
> "where's it at" (instead of "where is it") and "you've got" (for "you have"
> or "you must"). Even "ain't" garners more approval.
There's a huge difference between 'not approved of', and 'not a real word'.
I'm not sure what kind of strategery you're practicing, but I think you're
all confuzzled.
Dave Hinz
roue
Although I don't claim that TUR2 contains the "ultimate truth
about everything", I stand by my claim that if it is read with an
open mind, it will calm many fears, including the ones expressed
to the original poster. This is not to say that "this is the only
book you will ever need in order to live a virtuous life, reform
the social order, raise your children properly, convert the
infidel, and assure your place in paradise". It's just to say
that its a darned informative book.
>> And religious fundamentalists generally do not believe
>> that "the truth" can be found in any single book, but
>rather that
>> "the truth" can be found in ONLY one book, something which
>I never
>> suggest.
>
>And did you not tell the plaintiff, with respect to the book
>in question, "...it should cure you..."? Did you not fail to
>inform the plaintiff that additional treatment would be
>required to affect a cure which you cannot, in fact, even
>guarantee?
I never guaranteed a cure, but merely expressed my opinion that a
cure would likely be forthcoming, provided of course, that the
instructions on the label were followed. :)
Download the thing and give it a read. Speculation devoid of
data will get us nowhere. The book is partly devoted to
determining the most rational way to make predictions involving
resources, pollution, et cetera.
>> After he published
>> his findings, his agenda seemed to consist of dealing with
>the
>> vicious slanders and smear campaigns launched his was by a
>few
>> unscrupulous demagogues calling themselves
>"environmentalists".
>
>OK. I admit to being an expert on... nothing. However, the
>conditions we live in today are, to the best of our
>knowledge, unprecedented both in terms of human population
>and in our ability to stimulate our environment in various
>arguably significant ways. (Ask a former east-coast cod
>fisher.) From what I've been able to find out, it would
>appear that we are only beginning to grasp the
>interconnections between things like climate, ocean
>currents, biodiversity and so on. (And we'd still rather go
>to Mars and rummage about there first. Ah well.)
>
>I'm not one of those folks who think we can "destroy the
>earth". I do believe, however, that Biosphere 2 (remember
>that?) was a pretty good example of how inadequate current
>knowledge of interdependence is.
It was a pretty good example of how to stage a publicity stunt.
B2 was not a viable ecology mainly because it was too darned
small. You can't expect to build an ecology in a building. At
least not with current technology.
>I do believe we can tax the
>environment sufficiently - perhaps by force of numbers
>alone - and that natural forces can (independently or in
>concert) also alter the environment sufficiently, as to make
>the earth a much less habitable place for humans. Perhaps
>even uninhabitable. To believe otherwise seems an expression
>of faith alone and reveal a lack of perspective that may
>prove problematic, if not fatal.
Again, just download the book and read it. If you still think
Simon is full of hooey after considering his arguments, then you
will at least have an informed opinion on his work.
>But finally, to predict with assurance any particular
>outcome - good or bad - is only guesswork, no matter how
>educated. Given the state of our collective knowledge, and
>the amount of that knowledge that I could conceivably jam
>into my tired cranium at once, I can only conclude that the
>coin's been tossed, but it hasn't hit the ground yet. Good
>luck everyone!
Again, a good portion of the book is about how to make
predictions, given the limits of the available data.
>> Everybody has an agenda. Some will tell you what theirs
>is, and
>> the rest lie about it.
>
>Mine is to explore possibilities and question assumptions.
Mine is to waste time on netnews. :)
>Best,
>-smw
--
Irregardless,
R.
roue
<lpo...@hotmail.spamfree.com> wrote:
>
>Fred A. Murphy wrote in message
><28eT7.288$M3.3...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>...
>>
>>On 15-Dec-2001, "Scott Willing" <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Irregardless,
>>>
>>> To lend weight to your position, the use of real words is
>>> recommended.
>>
>>So does looking up a word before declaring it's not "real".
>>
[stuff edited out]
"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, so why
shouldn't "regardless" and "irregardless" mean the same thing?
[smirk]
--
Irregardless and inflammable,
R.
sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net
us with :
>[stuff edited out]
>
>"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, so why
>shouldn't "regardless" and "irregardless" mean the same thing?
>
>[smirk]
>
>--
>Irregardless and inflammable,
>
>R.
I find your viewpoint invaluable.
J.
Jeremiah D. Seitz
Porch karaoke king and the guy who runs with 8< scissors >8
Omega Techware
http://omegatechware.hypermart.net
~^ beancounter ~^
into some sort of fule additive...
Scott Willing
<dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3c1e5644$0$30968$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> In alt.energy.homepower lpogoda
<lpo...@hotmail.spamfree.com> wrote:
>
> > "irregardless" ranks right up there (or should it be
right down there?) with
> > "where's it at" (instead of "where is it") and "you've
got" (for "you have"
> > or "you must"). Even "ain't" garners more approval.
>
> There's a huge difference between 'not approved of', and
'not a real word'.
You have a point Dave.
There was a time when anyone who pronounced "nuclear" as
"nuke-u-lar" would be considered an uneducated moron. But
once enough of 'em - GWB comes to mind - say "nuke-u-lar" or
"irregardless" these bastardizations become part of the
lexicon, literally, and pedants like me get caught out. The
injustice!
Next time I won't bother to "axe" for English; it's nothing
but a bastardization of other languages anyway, eh? (Eh is
in my Webster's too, eh? I never bothered to look before, so
this little OT topic on a very, very OT thread has been
mighty educational, eh?)
> I'm not sure what kind of strategery you're practicing,
but I think you're
> all confuzzled.
Can't speak for lpogoda, but I'm discombooberated.
-s
> Dave Hinz
>
>
Scott Willing
Two questions:
1. From where? (I've seen plenty of links to purchase the
thing, which I would rather do if the text looks interesting
enough.)
2. Is it a legal download, authorized by the owner of the
copyright?
Cheers,
-s
roue
<NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>> Download the thing and give it a read.
>
>Two questions:
>
>1. From where? (I've seen plenty of links to purchase the
>thing, which I would rather do if the text looks interesting
>enough.)
http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/
This is the late professor's web page.
>2. Is it a legal download, authorized by the owner of the
>copyright?
Yes. Most of Prof. Simon's works are archived there. One word of
caution though. The electronic versions look like they were
taken from word processor files without sufficient editing, so the
diagrams and charts are all missing, and there are parts that look
like they were a first draft. But you can still read most of the
text. If you want a dead tree copy, try a library or interlibrary
loan.
>Cheers,
>-s
--
Irregardless,
R.
roue
<NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
[stuff edited out ...]
>There was a time when anyone who pronounced "nuclear" as
>"nuke-u-lar" would be considered an uneducated moron. But
>once enough of 'em - GWB comes to mind - say "nuke-u-lar" or
>"irregardless" these bastardizations become part of the
>lexicon, literally, and pedants like me get caught out. The
>injustice!
...
>> I'm not sure what kind of strategery you're practicing,
>but I think you're
>> all confuzzled.
>
>Can't speak for lpogoda, but I'm discombooberated.
I think this is the Tristoogian dialect. :)
--
Irregardless, inflammable, invaluable, and nukyuler,
R.
Scott Willing
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:16:26 -0600, Scott Willing
> <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
> >> Download the thing and give it a read.
> >
> >Two questions:
> >
> >1. From where? (I've seen plenty of links to purchase the
> >thing, which I would rather do if the text looks
interesting
> >enough.)
>
>
http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/
JSimon/
A dead link last night, and apparently still a dead link
today.
No matter, sample chapters are available elsewhere.
-smw
roue
<NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote:
>http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/
>JSimon/
>
>A dead link last night, and apparently still a dead link
>today.
Perhaps I mistyped it. Try a google search on "Julian Simon".
--
Irregardless,
R.
do'nt think so@anytime.com Bernard
ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
which makes them silly :0(
<sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
news:3c1e662c.3946190@news...
ben williams
irregardless cafe !
ben
"Bernard" <I do'nt think s...@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:MI5Z7.45843$qr2.8...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Bob Ward
s...@anytime.com> wrote:
>irregardless is most certainly a word!! chekc yer spell checker on yer pc if
>ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
>which makes them silly :0(
Hmmm - MY spellchecker says that Bernard is a smelly troll. I guess
that settles it, then.
--
This space left intentionally blank.
Ron Purvis
Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8rt93u4hdb722k1d0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 23:22:20 GMT, "Bernard" <I do'nt think
> s...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
> >irregardless is most certainly a word!! chekc yer spell checker on yer pc
if
> >ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
> >which makes them silly :0(
>
>
>
> Hmmm - MY spellchecker says that Bernard is a smelly troll. I guess
> that settles it, then.
I guess you should look in a real dictionary before you call someone a
troll. The entry below is from the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Online which can be found at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary And that
really will settle it.
One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th
Duane C. Johnson
Bernard wrote:
> irregardless is most certainly a word!!
> chekc yer spell checker on yer pc if ya want!
> and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people
> think it aint which makes them silly :0(
No, it makes you look silly. See:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=irregardless
Duane
--
Home of the $35 LED solar tracker.
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3
CUL8ER \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Receiver
Powered by\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ [*]
Thermonuclear \ \Solar\Energy\from the Sun \ /////|
Energy(the Sun) \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / /\/ / /|
\ \ \ \ \ /\ / \/ / / / |
WA0VBE \ \ \ \ / /\ \/ / / \/ /|
Ziggy \ \ \/ / / \ \/ \/ /\ |
\ / \ \/ / /\ \\ / \ / / |
"Red Rock Energy" === ===\ / \ / \ === \ / ===
Duane C. Johnson, Designer=== === \ \ === / |
1825 Florence St Mirrors,Heliostats,Controls & Mounts|
White Bear Lake, Minnesota \ \ / |
USA 55110-3364 \ \ |
(651)635-5O65 work \ \ / |
(651)426-4766 home \ \ |
(413)556-659O Fax copyright \ / |
(651)583-2O62 Red Rock Energy Site (C)980907 ===\ |
red...@redrok.com (my primary email: address) \ |
red...@hotmail.com (Hotmail address) \ |
duane....@unisys.com (Unisys address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com/index.htm (My New Web site) \|
These are my opinions, and not that of Unisys Corp. ===
M Russon
wrote:
It
>is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to
>time in edited prose.
What in the world is PROSE then/.....;0)
M Russon
dave...@spamcop.net
> irregardless is most certainly a word!! chekc yer spell checker on yer pc if
> ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
> which makes them silly :0(
Doesn't ain't have an apostrophe?
Dave
Bob
"Bernard" <I do'nt think s...@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:MI5Z7.45843$qr2.8...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
[........]
> >"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, so why
> >shouldn't "regardless" and "irregardless" mean the same thing?
> >
> >[smirk]
> >
Actually, they do - except that 'ir'regardless is a variant, and
acceptable due to common use, such as a colloquialism. Language
being a dynamic rather than a static means of communication, if
someone wants to use irregardless, which might be defined as: ir
(without, or sans) regardless (with no regard for; sans regard),
therefore, 'without not having regard for', (seems like a
definition of just the opposite-'having regard for') then it is
similar to a double negative, such as 'we do not have none'.
Bob
Steven
Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
explode.
steven
"Bernard" <I do'nt think s...@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:MI5Z7.45843$qr2.8...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
hchi...@hotmail.com
4 entries found for inflammable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in?flam?ma?ble Pronunciation Key (n-flm-bl)
adj.
Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable. See Usage
Note at flammable.
Quickly or easily aroused to strong emotion; excitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, liable to inflammation, from Medieval Latin
nflammbilis, from Latin nflammre, to inflame. See inflame.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in?flamma?bili?ty n.
in?flamma?ble n.
in?flamma?bly adv.
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflammable
\In*flam"ma*ble\, a. [CF. F. inflammable.] 1. Capable of being easily
set fire; easily enkindled; combustible; as, inflammable oils or
spirits.
2. Excitable; irritable; irascible; easily provoked; as, an
inflammable temper.
Inflammable air, the old chemical name for hydrogen.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflammable
adj : possible to burn [syn: burnable, flammable, ignitable,
ignitible]
Source: WordNet ? 1.6, ? 1997 Princeton University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflammable
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:41:39 -0600, "Steven" <lords...@qwest.net>
wrote:
Chloe
news:S%mr8.77$p07....@sooner.brightok.net...
> Flammable and inflammable are not the same. they mean just the opposite.
>
> Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
>
> inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
> explode.
You can make up your own definitions, but if you want people to have any
idea what you're talking about it helps to go by the dictionary.
From Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
flammable
adjective
American or specialized for inflammable
This solvent is highly flammable (=burns very easily), so don't use it near
a naked flame.
inflammable, American or specialized flammable
adjective
burning very easily
a highly inflammable liquid
FIGURATIVE It was a highly inflammable situation (=one which could easily
lead to trouble).
If you want to say something's not flammable on inflammable, the word you
need is non-flammable.
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
>
> Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
>
> inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
> explode.
in*flam*ma*ble
adj.
Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable.
Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming
that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix -in
in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is
related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and
inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin
preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many
people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is
advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:Flammable and inflammable are not the same. they mean just the opposite.
>-:
>-:Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
>-:
>-:inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
>-:explode.
>-:
>-:steven
>-:
Sorry, but you are about four days late with this one. Try again next
year.
flam搶a搓le (flm-bl)
adj.
Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; inflammable.
in搭lam搶a搓le Pronunciation Key (n-flm-bl)
adj.
Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable. See Usage
Note at flammable.
Quickly or easily aroused to strong emotion; excitable.
>-:
>-:"Bernard" <I do'nt think s...@anytime.com> wrote in message
>-:news:MI5Z7.45843$qr2.8...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>-:> irregardless is most certainly a word!! chekc yer spell checker on yer pc
>-:if
>-:> ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
>-:> which makes them silly :0(
>-:>
>-:> <sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
>-:> news:3c1e662c.3946190@news...
>-:> On 17 Dec 2001 20:27:50 GMT, ro...@merr.com (roue) decided to enlighten
>-:> us with :
>-:>
>-:> >[stuff edited out]
>-:> >
>-:> >"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, so why
>-:> >shouldn't "regardless" and "irregardless" mean the same thing?
>-:> >
>-:> >[smirk]
>-:> >
>-:> >--
>-:> >Irregardless and inflammable,
>-:> >
>-:> >R.
>-:>
>-:> I find your viewpoint invaluable.
>-:>
>-:> J.
>-:> Jeremiah D. Seitz
>-:> Porch karaoke king and the guy who runs with 8< scissors >8
>-:> Omega Techware
>-:> http://omegatechware.hypermart.net
>-:>
>-:>
>-:
Don Klipstein
>Flammable and inflammable are not the same. they mean just the opposite.
>
>Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
>
>inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
>explode.
Sorry, "inflammable" means flammable, more literally "easy to inflame".
This word is falling out of favor as to meaning whether or not a substance
is flammable since it is easily taken wrongly. Nowadays it is preferable
to state either "flammable" or "non-flammable" and avoid usage of
"inflammable".
Now another thing: Flammable and combustible don't mean exactly the
same thing. Flammable substances are easy to ignite and burn rapidly,
while combustible substances are merely able to burn. Flammable liquids
produce vapors ignitable by spark or flame and fire spreads rapidly to
explosively in the vapors over the surface of a flammable liquid.
Combustible liquids are not this bad, although they can get this bad at
elevated temperatures.
For example - drop a lit match into a can of kerosene or home heating
oil or diesel oil. Chances are that the match will extinguish while
sinking and there is no fire anywhere once the match sinks. (WARNING -
kerosene becomes truly flammable at temperatures above whatever its flash
point is, and this varies from one batch to another but is generally over
100 degrees F but not by a whole lot. In general combustible/flammable
liquids have "flash points" which are temperatures below which they are
combustible and above which they are flammable. Specific petroleum
products, if not specific down to a single chemical, will normally have
some range and variation in flash point.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Walter Daniels
>
>Flammable means combustible the ability to explode or burn.
Sorry, but "Flammabe" means "capable of burning.
>inflammable means non-combustible. does not have the ability to burn or
>explode.
*Non* Flammable is what yo want here. _Inflammable_ means *highly*
flammable. I.e., Gasoline, LOX, etc. are "inlflammable" liquids.
>steven
>
>
>"Bernard" <I do'nt think s...@anytime.com> wrote in message
>news:MI5Z7.45843$qr2.8...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>> irregardless is most certainly a word!! chekc yer spell checker on yer pc
>if
>> ya want! and it's a good word to use to, c'asue most people think it aint
>> which makes them silly :0(
>>
>> <sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
>> news:3c1e662c.3946190@news...
>> On 17 Dec 2001 20:27:50 GMT, ro...@merr.com (roue) decided to enlighten
>> us with :
>>
>> >[stuff edited out]
>> >
>> >"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, so why
>> >shouldn't "regardless" and "irregardless" mean the same thing?
>> >
>> >[smirk]
>> >
>> >--
>> >Irregardless and inflammable,
>> >
>> >R.
>>
>> I find your viewpoint invaluable.
>>
>> J.
>> Jeremiah D. Seitz
>> Porch karaoke king and the guy who runs with 8< scissors >8
>> Omega Techware
>> http://omegatechware.hypermart.net
>>
>>
>
>
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics Promotional Consulting.
Is your advertising working with your marketing to help with your selling? If
they aren't working together, you may be spending too much.
http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics
*******fbng...@earthlink.net**************