Without Rights
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Messages
- 928
Wow, this took a turn into stupid while I was away.
Then it's right up your alley.
Wow, this took a turn into stupid while I was away.
How long has it been since it rained there? One of the dangers of a long dry spell is that the oil builds up on roadways, and when the rain finally comes it gets particularly slippery. That's when you tend to see the oily sheen in puddles.
How long has it been since it rained there? One of the dangers of a long dry spell is that the oil builds up on roadways, and when the rain finally comes it gets particularly slippery. That's when you tend to see the oily sheen in puddles.
Why will you still pick out topics but won't address my previous points? Is it "have a nice life", until you think you can combat a point?
If you are gonna go cry to momma on some topics then cry to her on all them.
Where do you get the idea that I'm "combatting" your points? I was merely offering an alternative explanation that doesn't involve either oil seeping from the asphalt or falling with the rain.

How long has it been since it rained there? One of the dangers of a long dry spell is that the oil builds up on roadways, and when the rain finally comes it gets particularly slippery. That's when you tend to see the oily sheen in puddles.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. You're saying your point is that people are in potential danger, and the media, which is ignoring this danger, is proving your point?
Try Adderall.I've tried; that only makes it worse.
We haven't been arguing? OK![]()
It is possible for wind and rain to carry toxins inland and dump them on populations of people.
Well then, is it oil build up on roads or is it oil from the asphalt? Because first you said asphalt, being petroleum, would seep oil. Now is it the cars, or does asphalt produce it's own oil and "build up" in dry spells?
So toxins could come inland but it is loony to believe the toxins could be enough to do harm?I agree with you. The question is, would those toxins appear in concentrations high enough to cause significant health problems?
Did you know that means nothing applied to this discussion.Did you know that oxygen is toxic in high enough concentrations?
Am I the only one suspecting that WR has ~20 billion reasons to try to convince people that he/she has suffered from this catastrophy?
Not to the degree you seem to believe. What was intended as a neutral observation was seen by you to be an attack.
I think you've got me confused with someone else. I never said oil seeped from asphalt. I said that it builds up on roadways as it leaks from vehicles, then gets washed off during heavy rain. This is a common phenomenon here in Texas, where we often have long dry spells punctuated by thunderstorms.
. It's possible that this hypervigilance that leads you to believe you are being attacked when you are not is clouding your judgement when you think about the oil spill.
Disastrous effects of the oil spill, obviously.Don't quite see the relation there. So what did you mean when you said
"disastrous effects of the oil spill that exist entirely in their imagination."
What is it that's in my imagination?
So toxins could come inland but it is loony to believe the toxins could be enough to do harm?
You're asking me? Those are your words.
Let me make my position clear: I would be happy to agree with you that we are facing a major health problem if you provide compelling evidence that this is true. Simply telling us what you believe is not compelling evidence.