Metals To Make My Own Coins

[+arpegio]

Many caches do get contaminated by Dihydrogen Monoxide, and you can encounter it on your way to and from the cache. In this state we have as many as 200 deaths a year from Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is most lethal when combined with chloride or chlorine. Why in the world should we allow this in our environment? Why does GC.com approve caches near and on ground known to be contaminated with Dihydrogen Monoxide?

 

Getting back to the lead issue, it’s not about the lead. If you don’t want to use lead then don’t. But let’s not get too far out in left field here. Once you understand the Dihydrogen Monoxide connection you will understand what I am getting at.

Are you trying to say that lead is no more dangerous than water? Certainly, that is not your position.

 

Strawman/logical fallacy argument at its best. Associating water with more toxic substances. That stupid web site he refers to is equally annoying, with BS quotes like

Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene)

 

Associating water with hydrochloric acid?

 

This kind of stuff really pisses me off. It's total intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation. This is like saying, "Hitler drank Diet Sprite, therefore if you drink Diet Sprite, you're a Nazi!"

 

It really, really, really annoys me when people pull those stupid, ignorant, retarded arguments off the web. They're the last bastion of desperate people trying to distort reality to back up some specific agenda which is as far away from the truth as you can get.

 

Sorry to come off so acerbic, but I really have an issue with people who employ misdirection and logical fallacies to pretend to make points. This is a tremendously insideous disease of ignorance that seems to be spreading.

Edited July 14, 2006 by arpegio

[+Fergus]

There are lots of places out there where you can get lead free casting metal. If you are only looking for a small amount lead free fishing weights are your best bet. As for making a coin I would start by making a coin out of clay and bake if hard. Once you have a coin, you can then make a RTV mold. The thing to remember about RTV is that it picks up detail very well. Seamus and I were making some site tokens for an SCA event and he used his fingers to apply the release compound to the coin. When we started casting coins we found that the RTV rubber had picked up his fingerprints.

[68-eldo]

Many caches do get contaminated by Dihydrogen Monoxide, and you can encounter it on your way to and from the cache. In this state we have as many as 200 deaths a year from Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is most lethal when combined with chloride or chlorine. Why in the world should we allow this in our environment? Why does GC.com approve caches near and on ground known to be contaminated with Dihydrogen Monoxide?

 

Getting back to the lead issue, it’s not about the lead. If you don’t want to use lead then don’t. But let’s not get too far out in left field here. Once you understand the Dihydrogen Monoxide connection you will understand what I am getting at.

Are you trying to say that lead is no more dangerous than water? Certainly, that is not your position.

 

Strawman/logical fallacy argument at its best. Associating water with more toxic substances. That stupid web site he refers to is equally annoying, with BS quotes like

Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene)

 

Associating water with hydrochloric acid?

 

This kind of stuff really pisses me off. It's total intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation. This is like saying, "Hitler drank Diet Sprite, therefore if you drink Diet Sprite, you're a Nazi!"

 

It really, really, really annoys me when people pull those stupid, ignorant, retarded arguments off the web. They're the last bastion of desperate people trying to distort reality to back up some specific agenda which is as far away from the truth as you can get.

 

Sorry to come off so acerbic, but I really have an issue with people who employ misdirection and logical fallacies to pretend to make points. This is a tremendously insideous disease of ignorance that seems to be spreading.

 

Exactly the point. That web site was probably put up by someone playing a joke on the world. But it shows how misleading the carefully edited truth can be. Did you notice the link to the opposition? Why would anyone do that? To stir up things.

 

Do you think this type of thing is beyond environmental groups or safety people? Think of the group that burned all those Hummers in the new car lot a couple of years ago.

 

Read everything with a little skepticism and make up your own mind.

 

Anyway we are trying to move past this issue and get back to casting. Sorry for the digression.

[+arpegio]

Exactly the point. That web site was probably put up by someone playing a joke on the world. But it shows how misleading the carefully edited truth can be. Did you notice the link to the opposition? Why would anyone do that? To stir up things.

 

Do you think this type of thing is beyond environmental groups or safety people? Think of the group that burned all those Hummers in the new car lot a couple of years ago.

 

Read everything with a little skepticism and make up your own mind.

 

Anyway we are trying to move past this issue and get back to casting. Sorry for the digression.

 

Unfortunately there's another type of logical fallacy in your counter-argument.

 

You're assuming that both sides of an issue are equal in weight, when they are not.

 

The average, extremist or moderate elements of liberals and conservatives are not equal in size, power, credibility, influence or scientific/logical respectability.

 

You use the example of some hippies who torched a few hummers as an example of liberals, while on the other side, you have 80% of the mainstream media and the president of the united states, and a good bit of corporate america. That's an unfair, inequitable characterization.

 

Environmental issues are far more complex, and you can't use some fringe group of 8 patchoulli-reeking guys in skirts as a counterargument to a $100 Billion dollar array of corporate industry, media and political lobbyist groups.

 

This type of logical fallacy is common in use.. The best example is the infamous "frivolous lawsuit" which supposedly exemplifies how radical some small minority may be, like the McDonald's coffee spill issue, which has rarely been accurately reported in the first place. Or some "environmental wacko" chaining himself to a tree -- as an example of the environmental movement -- another invalid association.

 

Anyway, back on topic. I digress... sorry.

Edited July 16, 2006 by arpegio

[+Damenace]

Exactly the point. That web site was probably put up by someone playing a joke on the world. But it shows how misleading the carefully edited truth can be. Did you notice the link to the opposition? Why would anyone do that? To stir up things.

 

Do you think this type of thing is beyond environmental groups or safety people? Think of the group that burned all those Hummers in the new car lot a couple of years ago.

 

Read everything with a little skepticism and make up your own mind.

 

Anyway we are trying to move past this issue and get back to casting. Sorry for the digression.

 

Unfortunately there's another type of logical fallacy in your counter-argument.

 

You're assuming that both sides of an issue are equal in weight, when they are not.

 

The average, extremist or moderate elements of liberals and conservatives are not equal in size, power, credibility, influence or scientific/logical respectability.

 

You use the example of some hippies who torched a few hummers as an example of liberals, while on the other side, you have 80% of the mainstream media and the president of the united states, and a good bit of corporate america. That's an unfair, inequitable characterization.

 

Environmental issues are far more complex, and you can't use some fringe group of 8 patchoulli-reeking guys in skirts as a counterargument to a $100 Billion dollar array of corporate industry, media and political lobbyist groups.

 

This type of logical fallacy is common in use.. The best example is the infamous "frivolous lawsuit" which supposedly exemplifies how radical some small minority may be, like the McDonald's coffee spill issue, which has rarely been accurately reported in the first place. Or some "environmental wacko" chaining himself to a tree -- as an example of the environmental movement -- another invalid association.

 

Anyway, back on topic. I digress... sorry.