From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>This is criticism of you.   
      
   ><*yawn*>   
      
   >>"Please don't copy the ads when reposting an article copied from the   
   >>Web to Usenet" would have been perfectly polite.   
      
   >So your objection to my noting that it would be better to paste an   
   >article with the ads stripped out is that I ... didn't suggest that   
   >the ads be stripped out? Ohhhh...kayyyyyy ...   
      
   I'm just saying, if you criticize, own it.   
      
   >>Or how about the original criticism, that to make this method as   
   >>lethal as quickly as possible and to keep the gas at a high enough   
   >>concentration without leaking, the state literally needs to build a   
   >>gas chamber?   
      
   >Now, this is something I do happen to know a little bit about. A NRB   
   >mask delivers 60-90% inspired concentration of the gas being delivered   
   >at 15 l/m. At the *low* end of that delivery range, the inspired gas   
   >is going to be 92% N2. That will always, always, always be lethal, and   
   >pretty quickly so. You will probably deliver more N2 -- again, even   
   >assuming the NRB is operating at the bottom of its range -- than you   
   >could in any "gas chamber" you could realistically construct. There is   
   >simply no reason for that.   
      
   Ok. That sounds lethal. If done right, there's no way that shouldn't   
   have worked.   
      
   >. . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)