"Concentrated" nitric acid is only 70% pure. Obtaining anything stronger
than that becomes costly and the shelf-life declines markedly.
Sulphuric acid is commonly available (god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community) from BnQ., plumbers'
merchants and such like at concentrations of about 98% and you don't
really need anything stronger than that for general use.
Hydrochloric acid seems to top-out at only 36% purity and it's tough to
obtain any solution of it stronger than that.
Do we have any chemistry aces here who can explain the wide disparity in
the maximum strengths of these commonly available acids?

Cursitor Doom wrote

"Concentrated" nitric acid is only 70% pure. Obtaining anything stronger
than that becomes costly and the shelf-life declines markedly.
Sulphuric acid is commonly available (god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community) from BnQ., plumbers'
merchants and such like at concentrations of about 98% and you don't
really need anything stronger than that for general use.
Hydrochloric acid seems to top-out at only 36% purity and it's tough to
obtain any solution of it stronger than that.
Do we have any chemistry aces here who can explain the wide disparity in
the maximum strengths of these commonly available acids?

Its just the way it is with those acids and what they are commonly used for.

On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
"Concentrated" nitric acid is only 70% pure. Obtaining anything stronger
than that becomes costly and the shelf-life declines markedly.
Sulphuric acid is commonly available (god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community) from BnQ., plumbers'
merchants and such like at concentrations of about 98% and you don't
really need anything stronger than that for general use.
Hydrochloric acid seems to top-out at only 36% purity and it's tough to
obtain any solution of it stronger than that.
Do we have any chemistry aces here who can explain the wide disparity in
the maximum strengths of these commonly available acids?

Hydrochloric acid. the concentration is governed by the solubility of
the gas hydrogen chloride (the irritating gas given off by brick acid)
in water - max possible is 36%
Sulphuric acid. As with hydrochl;oric acid but the gas involved is
sulphur trioxide whic reacts with the water. Theoreticall 100% is
available and can be bought from chemical suppliers

Malcolm

On 23/11/16 19:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:26:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

"Concentrated" nitric acid is only 70% pure. Obtaining anything stronger
than that becomes costly and the shelf-life declines markedly.
Sulphuric acid is commonly available (god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community) from BnQ., plumbers'
merchants and such like at concentrations of about 98% and you don't
really need anything stronger than that for general use.
Hydrochloric acid seems to top-out at only 36% purity and it's tough to
obtain any solution of it stronger than that.
Do we have any chemistry aces here who can explain the wide disparity in
the maximum strengths of these commonly available acids?

This, from way back in the memory banks. It may not be quite correct
in detail, but the gist of it is OK:

If you take some dilute nitric acid, and try to concentrate it by
boiling to drive off the water, the temperature slowly rises as water
is driven off until it reaches 121°C and a concentration of 68%, when
it forms what is known as a constant boiling mixture* (CBM), in simple
terms the nitric acid (HNO3)is boiling off as fast as the water, and
the vapour above the liquid has the same composition as the boiling
liquid, so the boiling liquid never gets more concentrated. If you
want stronger nitric acid, known as fuming nitric acid, you have to
distil it from a mixture of sulphuric acid and potassium nitrate, but
even then you can only get a maximum of 99%, because the nitric acid
itself dissociates into N2O5 and H2O and forms another CBM.
2HNO3 - N2O5 + H2O.

Pretty much the same explanation goes for hydrochloric acid, although
here the CBM at atmospheric pressure is at 110°C and a concentration
of about 20% HCl. But because HCl gas is very soluble in water, if you
distil a solution under reduced pressure, the water boils off in
preference to the HCl, and you get higher concentrations; lab grade
conc. HCl is about 37%, as you say. Whiffy stuff!

But H2SO4 doesn't easily evaporate, unlike the two above, and H2SO4
forms a CBM with water of 98% that boils as 330°C, so can't be made
any more concentrated by distillation.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotrope

Very good explanation of acid strengths. Just to gild the lily, also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleum

--

Jeff

On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years

On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years

Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years


Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years



Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.



Well of course, I couldn't agree more. By now we should all know that
there are only two authoritative sources of information - the Daily Mail
and the side of a bus.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/23/brex...tten-on-a-bus/

On 24/11/16 11:34, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years




Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.



Well of course, I couldn't agree more. By now we should all know that
there are only two authoritative sources of information - the Daily Mail
and the side of a bus.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/23/brex...tten-on-a-bus/

Straw man. I was not endorsing the sides of buses or the Daily mail. I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE in order to
present a version of the truth that conforms to the bigotry of its
readership, and I selected the guardian PRECISELY BECAUSE it was cited
as a reference to prove a point, which it itself does not support,
although it claims to.

That other news outlets of a less left-leaning nature are very little
different, except insofar as tabloids, selling into the tits and bums
market, they actually don't pretend the high moral ground that the
Guardian does, is not the point.

The point is that the Guardian is as post truth and propaganda filled as
any tabloid. The only difference being the odor of sanctity that its
fast perishing corpse tries to emit.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.

On 24/11/16 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.



So the UK is not part of worldwide then?






--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 24/11/2016 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.





There are two types of brexitters:

Those that can't read.

those that can read but distort what they read to suit their beliefs.

On 24/11/2016 13:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.



So the UK is not part of worldwide then?

Not one of your better comments, TNP.

On 24/11/16 15:27, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 13:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.



So the UK is not part of worldwide then?

Not one of your better comments, TNP.

One of my better comments actually.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 24/11/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So the UK is not part of worldwide then?

Not one of your better comments, TNP.

One of my better comments actually.

Lord help you then.

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.
As you might expect. The world centre for acid attacks is Bangla Desh. (Muslims again.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 12:11:59 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:34, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years




Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.



Well of course, I couldn't agree more. By now we should all know that
there are only two authoritative sources of information - the Daily Mail
and the side of a bus.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/23/brex...tten-on-a-bus/

Straw man. I was not endorsing the sides of buses or the Daily mail. I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE in order to
present a version of the truth that conforms to the bigotry of its
readership, and I selected the guardian PRECISELY BECAUSE it was cited
as a reference to prove a point, which it itself does not support,
although it claims to.

That other news outlets of a less left-leaning nature are very little
different, except insofar as tabloids, selling into the tits and bums
market, they actually don't pretend the high moral ground that the
Guardian does, is not the point.

The point is that the Guardian is as post truth and propaganda filled as
any tabloid. The only difference being the odor of sanctity that its
fast perishing corpse tries to emit.

It's a new craze called virtue signalling.

On 24/11/2016 18:16, harry wrote:

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Simply ignorant, as usual. Conan Doyle included it in one of his
Sherlock Holmes stories the best part of 150 years ago. Just as an
example. If you stopped making up facts to suit your prejudices, you
would look less foolish.

On 24/11/2016 11:34, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years




Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.

Can somebody telll turnip that if he read the article properly rather
than trying to weasel contradictions out of it he'd discover that
globally women get attacked more, and in the UK it's men. So the answer
is "both".

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 24/11/2016 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.





There are two types of brexitters:

Those that can't read.

those that can read but distort what they read to suit their beliefs.

More of your lies, remoaner.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:16:24 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's used as a weapon nowadays in the
black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tack-hospital-
admissions-have-almost-doubled-in-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Tell that to Katie Piper.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 24/11/16 19:40, Clive George wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:34, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at
people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this
is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis
for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years





Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.

Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth

From the article.

*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.

Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €œLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€�


So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?

You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.

Can somebody telll turnip that if he read the article properly rather
than trying to weasel contradictions out of it he'd discover that
globally women get attacked more, and in the UK it's men. So the answer
is "both".


is that why they posted a photo of a british woman?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 18:27:23 UTC, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 18:16, harry wrote:

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Simply ignorant, as usual. Conan Doyle included it in one of his
Sherlock Holmes stories the best part of 150 years ago. Just as an
example. If you stopped making up facts to suit your prejudices, you
would look less foolish.

So you're down to quoting works of fiction now?

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 23:09:16 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:16:24 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's used as a weapon nowadays in the
black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people..
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tack-hospital-
admissions-have-almost-doubled-in-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Tell that to Katie Piper.


Good example ****-fer-brains.
Her attacker was black.
Here he is.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=im...NaRLUSQeYWM%3A

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 18:27:23 UTC, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 18:16, harry wrote:

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Simply ignorant, as usual. Conan Doyle included it in one of his
Sherlock Holmes stories the best part of 150 years ago. Just as an
example. If you stopped making up facts to suit your prejudices, you
would look less foolish.

So you're down to quoting works of fiction now?

He wouldnt have included it in the fiction if it didnt happen then.

And we know from the court records that it did happen then anyway.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:28:52 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 23:09:16 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:16:24 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's used as a weapon nowadays in the
black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at
people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most
of the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that
this is a 'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have
any basis for this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...0/acid-attack-
hospital-
admissions-have-almost-doubled-in-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Tell that to Katie Piper.


Good example ****-fer-brains.
Her attacker was black.

Migrated from Asia? I think not. Ad he was mentally ill - it wasn't
cultural.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 23:09:16 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:16:24 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's used as a weapon nowadays in the
black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at
people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is
a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis
for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tack-hospital-
admissions-have-almost-doubled-in-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Tell that to Katie Piper.


Good example ****-fer-brains.
Her attacker was black.
Here he is.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=im...NaRLUSQeYWM%3A

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed that he doesnt
come from S Asia.

On 25/11/16 08:21, Bob Eager wrote:
he was mentally ill - it wasn't
cultural.
You think mental illness has no cultural component then?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44249/

would disagree with you.

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Friday, 25 November 2016 08:21:45 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:28:52 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 23:09:16 UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:16:24 -0800, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's used as a weapon nowadays in the
black community

You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at
people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most
of the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that
this is a 'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have
any basis for this, or is it pure supposition on your part?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...0/acid-attack-
hospital-
admissions-have-almost-doubled-in-last-10-years

Acid attacks in the UK are part of the cultural enrichment brought by
migrants.
It was virtually unknown until we had migrants from S. Asia.

Tell that to Katie Piper.


Good example ****-fer-brains.
Her attacker was black.

Migrated from Asia? I think not. Ad he was mentally ill - it wasn't
cultural.


Wriggle wriggle.

I never said it was exclusively Asian.
Just mostly.

Re cultural;
ALL muslims are mentally ill.
What has culture got to do with race?

On 24/11/2016 13:56, dennis@home wrote:

There are two types of brexitters:

Those that can't read.

those that can read but distort what they read to suit their beliefs.

There are two types of _people_.

By lumping everyone who voted leave in the same bucket you are showing
that tendency yourself.

Andy

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:20:02 -0800, harry wrote:

So you're down to quoting works of fiction now?

yeah, he started with the Guardian and now he's resorting to Conan Doyle.
Next time Mark Twain?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:28:52 -0800, harry wrote:

Good example ****-fer-brains.
Her attacker was black.

It's funny how she scrupulously avoids any reference to his ethnicity in
interviews which is a mean-spirited thing to do inasmuch as she could
prevent the same thing happening to other young girls who might be
tempted to go down the same lefty-orchestrated path. Still, I guess she
can't afford to upset her employers, the MSM.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:26:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/11/16 08:21, Bob Eager wrote:
he was mentally ill - it wasn't cultural.
You think mental illness has no cultural component then?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44249/

would disagree with you.

It's been known for decades that people of African origin (including the
West Indes) imported into Western civilisation are more prone to
developing mental illness as a result (typically paranoid schizophrenia).
You frequently see them mumbling to themselves darkly on train platforms.
I personally give 'em a very wide berth.

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:25:33 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:20:02 -0800, harry wrote:

So you're down to quoting works of fiction now?

yeah, he started with the Guardian and now he's resorting to Conan Doyle.
Next time Mark Twain?

Nah. Lewis Carrol.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 00:35:43 -0800, harry wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:25:33 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:20:02 -0800, harry wrote:

So you're down to quoting works of fiction now?

yeah, he started with the Guardian and now he's resorting to Conan
Doyle.
Next time Mark Twain?

Nah. Lewis Carrol.

Never heard of him. Perhaps you meant Lewis Carroll.

Illiterate ****-fer-brains.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:43:36 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

Never heard of him. Perhaps you meant Lewis Carroll.

Illiterate ****-fer-brains.

The fact that you appear to be more familiar with the works of Lewis
Carroll than Harry is not really adding to your credibility.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:32:44 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:43:36 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

Never heard of him. Perhaps you meant Lewis Carroll.

Illiterate ****-fer-brains.

The fact that you appear to be more familiar with the works of Lewis
Carroll than Harry is not really adding to your credibility.

Why would that be, pray? This one is very good.

http://amzn.eu/2neIsQ0

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:57, GB wrote:
On 24/11/2016 12:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE

If you read the Guardian article more carefully, you might possibly
realise that it isn't self-contradictory. In some places, it is talking
about the UK and, in other places, it is talking about the position
worldwide.





There are two types of brexitters:

Those that can't read.

those that can read but distort what they read to suit their beliefs.

You missed out those who shouldn't have been allowed out of their padded
cell to vote. Sadly, they can still post on here.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

in 1543864 20161126 143244 Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:43:36 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

Never heard of him. Perhaps you meant Lewis Carroll.

Illiterate ****-fer-brains.

The fact that you appear to be more familiar with the works of Lewis
Carroll than Harry is not really adding to your credibility.

Well, you certainly aren't adding to yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll