Incandescent material

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

What is incandescent material? Dictionaries say it's something that emits light when heated. A lot of aerosols say "Do not spray on a naked flame or any incandescent material". So don't squirt it on a lightbulb? You'd think they'd make it more clear. I doubt many people know what that phrase means, I certainly don't.

--
Apparently Jimmy Savile isn't dead, he was recently seen off the Scarborough coast bobbing up and down on a small buoy.

[Harrison Hill]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 21:40:48 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> What is incandescent material? Dictionaries say it's something that emits light when heated. A lot of aerosols say "Do not spray on a naked flame or any incandescent material". So don't squirt it on a lightbulb? You'd think they'd make it more clear. I doubt many people know what that phrase means, I certainly don't.

To me "incandescent" means "aflame" so that "incandescent material" is already "on fire" ie candescent. But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

An incandescent lightbulb is not on fire. The filament is perhaps hot enough to ignite petrol, and maybe even the glass, but there is no fire as yet.

> But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(

It does doesn't it? Officially I think one is meant to be moreso than the other, can't remember which.

--
A Irish family is sitting in the living room.
The wife turns to the husband and says, "Let's send the kids out back to p-l-a-y , so we can fuck."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:08:07 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:59:55 +0100, Harrison Hill <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>
> It does doesn't it? Officially I think one is meant to be moreso than the other, can't remember which.

The word "flammable" was invented after the linguist and insurance agent
Benjamin Lee Whorf realized that the prefix "in-" could be mistaken for
the negative (as in "incorruptible") and recommended that things that could
burn easily be labeled "flammable" and not "inflammable."

He also discovered that referring to oil drums that no longer contained oil
as "empty" was bad for the insurance industry, because smokers felt no
compunctions about smoking near them -- whereas the stray fumes or oil films
were flammable indeed.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:31:34 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:08:07 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:59:55 +0100, Harrison Hill <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>>
>> It does doesn't it? Officially I think one is meant to be moreso than the other, can't remember which.
>
> The word "flammable" was invented after the linguist and insurance agent
> Benjamin Lee Whorf realized that the prefix "in-" could be mistaken for
> the negative (as in "incorruptible") and recommended that things that could
> burn easily be labeled "flammable" and not "inflammable."

Fair enough.

> He also discovered that referring to oil drums that no longer contained oil
> as "empty" was bad for the insurance industry, because smokers felt no
> compunctions about smoking near them -- whereas the stray fumes or oil films
> were flammable indeed.

Who would be stupid enough to smoke near an "empty oil drum"? An empty anything usually contains a bit of it. You wouldn't drink water from an "empty bottle of white spirit".

--
If colouring wasn't added to Coca-Cola, it would be green.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-08-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:08:07 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:59:55 +0100, Harrison Hill <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>>
>> It does doesn't it? Officially I think one is meant to be moreso than the other, can't remember which.
>
> The word "flammable" was invented after the linguist and insurance agent
> Benjamin Lee Whorf realized that the prefix "in-" could be mistaken for
> the negative (as in "incorruptible") and recommended that things that could
> burn easily be labeled "flammable" and not "inflammable."

The OED has "flammable" citations (not many, to be fair) back to 1813.

> He also discovered that referring to oil drums that no longer contained oil
> as "empty" was bad for the insurance industry, because smokers felt no
> compunctions about smoking near them -- whereas the stray fumes or oil films
> were flammable indeed.

Drums of gasoline or similar substances, not "oil" in the usual sense
(not so volatile or potentially explosive).

Anyway, he's a great example of how someone with a totally different
educational background could contribute so much to linguistics!


--
Men, there is no sacrifice greater than someone else's.
--- Skipper

[Whiskers]

On 2015-08-21, Tough Guy no. 1265 <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> What is incandescent material? Dictionaries say it's something that
> emits light when heated.

'Incandescent material' is 'material that is emitting light and heat' or
'material that is emitting light because of the application of heat' or
'material provided for the purpose of emitting light on the application
of heat'.

There are few materials that won't emit light when heated sufficiently
(although some will change chemically and physically first, eg the wax
and wick of a candle, whereas others don't, eg the filament of an
incandescent light bulb or the metallic oxides of a gas mantle after
first use).

> A lot of aerosols say "Do not spray on a
> naked flame or any incandescent material". So don't squirt it on a
> lightbulb? You'd think they'd make it more clear. I doubt many
> people know what that phrase means, I certainly don't.

Don't squirt onto anything glowing with heat. Or safer yet, don't
squirt near anything hot. The warning is given because the contents of
the product are capable of catching fire or exploding on exposure to
heat, and the presence of a flame or something glowing with heat is a
good indication that enough heat is present to ignite the product.

The incandescent parts of an 'incandescent light bulb' are relatively
safely enclosed - but the electrical contacts of the bulb are almost
certainly not proof against sprayed fluids accumulating where they might
eventually catch fire or cause other damage. So don't squirt light
bulbs - even the increasingly common sorts that aren't incandescent.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population knows what incandescent means. The warning should read, "Do not spray onto a naked flame or anything hot". That would make people stay away from cookers, hairdryers, etc.

--
While taking down the vitals for a soon-to-be mom, I asked how much she weighed.
"I really don't know," she said.
"Well, more or less," I prompted.
"More, I guess," she answered sadly.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:00:54 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population knows what incandescent means. The warning should read, "Do not spray onto a naked flame or anything hot".

A: "She shouldn't be using that hairspray."
B: "Why not?"
A: "Because she's a hot chick."

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] skrev:

> A: "She shouldn't be using that hairspray."
> B: "Why not?"
> A: "Because she's a hot chick."

B. Your old flame?

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:57:35 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:00:54 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population knows what incandescent means. The warning should read, "Do not spray onto a naked flame or anything hot".
>
> A: "She shouldn't be using that hairspray."
> B: "Why not?"
> A: "Because she's a hot chick."

You should use it on chicks, it damages the feathers.

--
What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
news:3ankacx...@news.ducksburg.com:

> On 2015-08-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 6:08:07 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:59:55 +0100, Harrison Hill
>>> <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>>>
>>> It does doesn't it? Officially I think one is meant to be moreso
>>> than the other, can't remember which.
>>
>> The word "flammable" was invented after the linguist and insurance
>> agent Benjamin Lee Whorf realized that the prefix "in-" could be
>> mistaken for the negative (as in "incorruptible") and recommended
>> that things that could burn easily be labeled "flammable" and not
>> "inflammable."
>
> The OED has "flammable" citations (not many, to be fair) back to 1813.

Whorf wasn't an insurance agent, either - he was an engineer who
specialized in fire prevention techniques; he was employed by an
insurance company as a consultant.

There's a germ of truth in Peter's claim - the National Fire Protection
Association, which was founded by insurance companies in 1896, adopted
the term 'flammable' during the 1920s, when Whorf was employed by the
Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Thus, it is possible that he had
something to do with encouraging the use of 'flammable,' though there's
no direct evidence for it and he certainly didn't invent the word.

See http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxflamma.html

>> He also discovered that referring to oil drums that no longer
>> contained oil as "empty" was bad for the insurance industry, because
>> smokers felt no compunctions about smoking near them -- whereas the
>> stray fumes or oil films were flammable indeed.
>
> Drums of gasoline or similar substances, not "oil" in the usual sense
> (not so volatile or potentially explosive).

In Whorf's words, 'around the storage of what are called "gasoline
drums," behavior will tend to a certain type, that is, great care will
be exercised; while around a storage of what are called "empty gasoline
drums," it will tend to be different - careless, with little repression
of somking or of tossing cigarette stubs about.' He gives no examples of
this careless behavior actually leading to explosions or fires: by
contrast, he describes a specific incident in which people at a wood
distillation plant were surprised when a substance they referred to as
'spun limestone' caught fire.

Interestingly, Whorf goes on to explain that the 'spun limestone' was
partially converted into calcium acetate by exposure to acetic acid
fumes, and calcium acetate formed 'inflammable acetone' when heated.
That was published in 1939: it seems that he had no personal objection
to 'inflammable.'

> Anyway, he's a great example of how someone with a totally different
> educational background could contribute so much to linguistics!

OTOH, he was a bit of a sucker for theosophy, though I suppose plenty of
Harvard alumni have fallen for equally ridiculous things.
--
S.O.P.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

What is used instead of "empty"?

--
Keyboard error - press any key to continue...

[Dr. HotSalt]

"Candescent" is a new word for me. Thanks.

So, the overstoked coal fire is candescent, and the stove it's burning in is incandescent?

> But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(

So, why is "flammatory" incromulent?

It's bad enough that one word can have two or more meanings; do we really need more than one word for/with the same meaning?

Er, once long ago someone challenged me to come up with four commonly used words that ended in "-ndous". All I could come up with were tremendous, stupendous, (both from movie teaser reels in the 1960's?) and horrendous.

Recently I mentioned this and was rewarded with "infandous" and "nefandous", but both seem to mean the same thing- infamous.

Pah.


Dr. HotSalt

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnmth6ls.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

Depending on what is being squirted, don't squirt it on a hot
incandescent bulb as the material may catch fire.

Aside: "catch fire" sounded normal when I just used it, but closer
examination convinced me it didn't make sense. I think it's the meaning
of "catch" when used along with "fire"d that gives me trouble

Sometimes it's best if I don't examine my English usage too closely.

--
charles

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Catch fire is used by everyone. Technically it's odd. Fire is not something that's all around us and gets caught. Maybe they used to think that before they really understood it?

--
Watching his date from the corner of his eye while he poured her a drink, the young bachelor said, "Say when."
She replied, "Right after that drink."

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Tough Guy no. 1265 skrev:

> Catch fire is used by everyone. Technically it's odd. Fire is
> not something that's all around us and gets caught. Maybe
> they used to think that before they really understood it?

Catch a cold. Catch my drift?

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Those are actually both caught from other people. I suppose you can catch fire if the thing next to you is on fire. But if you're the first thing to go on fire due to being very hot, then you haven't caught it, you created it.

--
Baby robins eat 14 feet of worms a day.

[Whiskers]

Fire is one of the elements - the basic things out of which everything
else is made. So fire is always present and there is at least a little
of it in most things. (Other cosmologies are available).

[Traddict]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : op.x3sie...@red.lan...

"Emptied" could be an alternative as the word implies the drums have
necessarily contained said hazardous substances, whereas an empty drum may
have never been filled with anything in the first place.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-08-22, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> In Whorf's words, 'around the storage of what are called "gasoline
> drums," behavior will tend to a certain type, that is, great care will
> be exercised; while around a storage of what are called "empty gasoline
> drums," it will tend to be different - careless, with little repression
> of somking or of tossing cigarette stubs about.' He gives no examples of
> this careless behavior actually leading to explosions or fires: by
> contrast, he describes a specific incident in which people at a wood
> distillation plant were surprised when a substance they referred to as
> 'spun limestone' caught fire.
>
> Interestingly, Whorf goes on to explain that the 'spun limestone' was
> partially converted into calcium acetate by exposure to acetic acid
> fumes, and calcium acetate formed 'inflammable acetone' when heated.
> That was published in 1939: it seems that he had no personal objection
> to 'inflammable.'

Interesting; I dunno what spun limestone actually is (well, I have an
idea now that I've looked it up) but I know acetone is a fire hazard.


--
$2.95!
PLATE O' SHRIMP
Luncheon Special

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-08-23, Dr. HotSalt wrote:

> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:59:57 PM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Friday, 21 August 2015 21:40:48 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> > What is incandescent material? Dictionaries say it's something that emits
>> > light when heated. A lot of aerosols say "Do not spray on a naked flame or
>> > any incandescent material". So don't squirt it on a lightbulb? You'd think
>> > they'd make it more clear. I doubt many people know what that phrase means,
>> > I certainly don't.
>>
>> To me "incandescent" means "aflame" so that "incandescent material" is
>> already "on fire" ie candescent.
>
> "Candescent" is a new word for me. Thanks.
>
> So, the overstoked coal fire is candescent, and the stove it's burning in is incandescent?
>
>> But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>
> So, why is "flammatory" incromulent?

Good question. Nobody seems to have trouble understanding that
"inflammatory language" is likely to cause figurative heat rather than
resist it.

> It's bad enough that one word can have two or more meanings; do we
> really need more than one word for/with the same meaning?

Synonyms aren't a problem, but synonyms that look like antonyms are.


--
Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity
is war. --- Henry Miller

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Uninflammable? Unflammable? Flame proof :-)

--
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.

--
It's only premarital sex if you're going to get married.

[Traddict]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de

discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...

Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
the issue.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Aug-24 23:01, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-08-23, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:59:57 PM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:

>>> But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
>>
>> So, why is "flammatory" incromulent?
>
> Good question. Nobody seems to have trouble understanding that
> "inflammatory language" is likely to cause figurative heat rather than
> resist it.

Inflammation is often mentioned in connection with a person's medical
condition. I doubt that anyone at all thinks that it means lack of
flammation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Dr. HotSalt]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:31:59 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Aug-24 23:01, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2015-08-23, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:59:57 PM UTC-7, Harrison Hill wrote:
>
> >>> But then "inflammable" would mean flammable :(
> >>
> >> So, why is "flammatory" incromulent?
> >
> > Good question. Nobody seems to have trouble understanding that
> > "inflammatory language" is likely to cause figurative heat rather than
> > resist it.
>
> Inflammation is often mentioned in connection with a person's medical
> condition. I doubt that anyone at all thinks that it means lack of
> flammation.

But flammation means what an arsonist does. The word is obsolete, but it's cromulent:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=flammation&use1913=on


Dr. HotSalt

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.

--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...

> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
> >
> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
> > the issue.
>
> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.

Is the difficulty your attention span?

The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...
>
>> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
>> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
>> >
>> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
>> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
>> > the issue.
>>
>> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
>
> Is the difficulty your attention span?

Oh do grow up.

> The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
> and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
> holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
> believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
> cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.

"Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.

--
A female friend of mine was admitted to a private hospital to try to
lose weight. Naturally I sent her flowers.

I received a "thank-you" note several days later; it said, "Thanks for
the flowers, they were delicious!"

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...

> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
> >> > the issue.
> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
> >
> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
>
> Oh do grow up.

Look who's talking.

> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
>
> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.

They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:26 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...
>
>> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
>> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
>> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
>> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
>> >> > the issue.
>> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
>> >
>> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
>>
>> Oh do grow up.
>
> Look who's talking.

I used reasoning, then you replied with an insult about my attention span.

>> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
>> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
>> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
>> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
>> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
>>
>> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.
>
> They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
> lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
> problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
> of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.

It's "labelled". And they presumably say "petrol" or "flammable" on them.

--
Mental Health Outsourcing -- I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. I got a call centre in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:26 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
> >> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
> >> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...
> >
> >> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
> >> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
> >> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
> >> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
> >> >> > the issue.
> >> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
> >> >
> >> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
> >>
> >> Oh do grow up.
> >
> > Look who's talking.
>
> I used reasoning, then you replied with an insult about my attention span.

"Reasoning" from false premises isn't legitimate.

> >> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
> >> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
> >> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
> >> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
> >> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
> >>
> >> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.
> >
> > They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
> > lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
> > problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
> > of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.
>
> It's "labelled". And they presumably say "petrol" or "flammable" on them.

Complaining about the American language is your way of acknowledging the
accuracy of what I wrote?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:26:44 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:26 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>> >> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>> >> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...
>> >
>> >> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
>> >> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
>> >> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
>> >> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
>> >> >> > the issue.
>> >> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
>> >>
>> >> Oh do grow up.
>> >
>> > Look who's talking.
>>
>> I used reasoning, then you replied with an insult about my attention span.
>
> "Reasoning" from false premises isn't legitimate.

Nothing I used was false.

>> >> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
>> >> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
>> >> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
>> >> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
>> >> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
>> >>
>> >> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.
>> >
>> > They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
>> > lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
>> > problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
>> > of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.
>>
>> It's "labelled". And they presumably say "petrol" or "flammable" on them.
>
> Complaining about the American language is your way of acknowledging the
> accuracy of what I wrote?

What's the American language to do with it?

--
Sex drive: a physical craving that begins in adolescence and ends at marriage.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:37:42 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:26:44 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:26 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
> >> >> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
> >> >> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...

> >> >> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
> >> >> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
> >> >> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
> >> >> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
> >> >> >> > the issue.
> >> >> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
> >> >> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
> >> >> Oh do grow up.
> >> > Look who's talking.
> >> I used reasoning, then you replied with an insult about my attention span.
> > "Reasoning" from false premises isn't legitimate.
>
> Nothing I used was false.

the claim that nothing you used was false is false.

> >> >> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
> >> >> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
> >> >> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
> >> >> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
> >> >> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
> >> >> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.
> >> > They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
> >> > lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
> >> > problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
> >> > of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.
> >> It's "labelled". And they presumably say "petrol" or "flammable" on them.
> > Complaining about the American language is your way of acknowledging the
> > accuracy of what I wrote?
>
> What's the American language to do with it?

I don't know, but that's what you chose to write about.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:20 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:37:42 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:26:44 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:26 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-4, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>> >> >> >> > discussion : op.x3vz7...@red.lan...
>
>> >> >> >> >> That's utterly ridiculous. The mention of the name of a flammable liquid
>> >> >> >> >> in the name should be enough to tell someone it might go on fire.
>> >> >> >> > Duh and how would you differenciate empty drums (that have contained
>> >> >> >> > gasoline) from full gasoline drums, then, as that seems to be the core of
>> >> >> >> > the issue.
>> >> >> >> By using the word empty. Empty gas drum, full gas drum. The word gas indicates no matches. The word empty or full indicates if there's loads of fuel in it.
>> >> >> > Is the difficulty your attention span?
>> >> >> Oh do grow up.
>> >> > Look who's talking.
>> >> I used reasoning, then you replied with an insult about my attention span.
>> > "Reasoning" from false premises isn't legitimate.
>>
>> Nothing I used was false.
>
> the claim that nothing you used was false is false.

Be more specific. And never start a sentence with a lower case letter in alt.usage.english.

>> >> >> > The word "empty" IS THE PROBLEM -- a container that USED TO HOLD gasoline,
>> >> >> > and no longer does, is empty because it no longer holds gasoline, but it
>> >> >> > holds highly flammable gasoline FUMES. The word "empty" makes the passerby
>> >> >> > believe there would be no hazard in using an open flame nearby (be it a
>> >> >> > cigarette or a welding torch), but there would be a major hazard.
>> >> >> "Empty drum" is not suggesting a hazard, but "empty petrol drum" is. The word PETROL. I'll type it again as you have such comprehension problems. PETROL is the key word meaning danger.
>> >> > They are not labeled "empty." They may or may not be labeled "gasoline." The
>> >> > lid may be off so that it is obvious there is no gasoline in them. The
>> >> > problem is in THINKING OF THEM AS "EMPTY," because even though they are empty
>> >> > of fuel, they are not empty of fumes.
>> >> It's "labelled". And they presumably say "petrol" or "flammable" on them.
>> > Complaining about the American language is your way of acknowledging the
>> > accuracy of what I wrote?
>>
>> What's the American language to do with it?
>
> I don't know, but that's what you chose to write about.

I have not complained about Americans while discussing drums.

--
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!