You can kill anyone with Anything.

[Farshooter]

how about a vacuum..... turn that thing on then get that snake tube thing and shove it your mouth. A nose plug might be required for desired results.

[cornyjohn]

A vacuum can kill because in a vacuum there is no oxygen...

[FriedToad]

Originally Posted by cornyjohn

I must disagree with you there.
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
tan·gi·ble
1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
–noun
5. something tangible, esp. a tangible asset.
[Origin: 1580–90; < LL tangibilis, equiv. to L tang(ere) to touch + -ibilis -ible]"




I do believe that an atom fits this description.

that, an atom is not.


So that also rules out hydrogen atom

[kokiri_kid]

Both of you, or should I say three, four (vinh, corny john, toad, ownage)? Well anyways, anre correct

But this is why Dictionary.com shouldn't be used... do you see the other definitions?? They mostly contradict or don't make sense themselves. Also, this means that an atom CAN be or CANNOT disqualified, depending on what kind of definition.

So, I guess this can only be determined by vinh.

[cornyjohn]

An object can't fit two definitions (unless it is a homophone), genius, so, if an atom is real and actual (which it is) then it is tangible. Tangibility is not just defined by being able to be seen or touched. Therefore, an atom IS tangible.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

tan·gi·ble
1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
–noun
5. something tangible, esp. a tangible asset.
[Origin: 1580–90; < LL tangibilis, equiv. to L tang(ere) to touch + -ibilis -ible]"

FriedToad, I think a hydrogen atom meets that requirement, does it not? Atoms are tangible, like it or not.

And, a radioactive atom may cause cancer, which can lead to death.

From TheVinh's first post, an atom meets the 2 requirements: tangibility and ability to kill, so we proved him wrong.

On the other hand, a hydrogen atom cannot be radioactive, so that rules out the cancer idea.

So drop the atom argument, as I think we pretty much sank that idea.

[raggaice]

too much of anything can kill you, so that's basicly it

[Megaman FTW]

A french military strategist.

[FriedToad]

hmm..................................


im sue if i thought for long enough i would come up with something, but im laughing to hard.


Cheese eating surrender monkeys is the correct term for the french since '06.


i think HoF for you

[TheVinh]

Originally Posted by MEGAMAN_FTW!

A french military strategist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Hey Mega, go to Google and type in "French Military Victories". Then press "I'm feeling lucky". It'll show you something FUNNY!

Originally Posted by cornyjohn

An object can't fit two definitions (unless it is a homophone), genius, so, if an atom is real and actual (which it is) then it is tangible. Tangibility is not just defined by being able to be seen or touched. Therefore, an atom IS tangible.

FriedToad, I think a hydrogen atom meets that requirement, does it not? Atoms are tangible, like it or not.

And, a radioactive atom may cause cancer, which can lead to death.

From TheVinh's first post, an atom meets the 2 requirements: tangibility and ability to kill, so we proved him wrong.

On the other hand, a hydrogen atom cannot be radioactive, so that rules out the cancer idea.

So drop the atom argument, as I think we pretty much sank that idea.

Isn't hydrogen extremely explosive? If you manage to prove me wrong, then fine I'll put it on >_>, but I still think one single atom is too small in size to be felt by a skin nerve. I don't feel that the justifications for why the atom is tangible are completely pure.

[FriedToad]

Oh my days! (christian tolerant)



that is freaking awesome!