"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report
No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.
No answer?
Odd how you yourself managed to snip Keith's bit about (the part you snipped
follows):
That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.
Cite please - you keep claiming you have
some special knowledge of this event beyond
that of the various reports in the literature.
I suggest you present it.
Meanwhile I suggest you read the report published
in the journal of Hazardous Materials in 2000
http://hugin.aue.auc.dk/publ/hoiset2000.pdf
(Qutes from cited document supporting keith's claim removed for brevity)
What, no response?
And you are trying to hound *him* for *allegedly* snipping your poppycock
from the discourse? LOL!
Brooks
snip