MOH Forum: Man Commits Suicide by Supergluing Mouth Shut

Man Commits Suicide by Supergluing Mouth Shut

Posted By:
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Jun 17, 2005

This one takes the cake! At first i thought it was a joke, but this fella really went out the uneasy way! Check it out:

"A young Thai man said to be suffering from stress killed himself by sealing his mouth and nose with super glue, police said Thursday.

The body of Komkrit Choochan, 20, was found Thursday morning in his bedroom in downtown Bangkok, police Lt. Col. Mongkol Nanthajit said. He said the victim, thought to have suffocated overnight, had his mouth and nose sealed with super glue, which prevented him from breathing.

It was believed to be the first suicide of its kind in Thailand.

Komkrit's family told police he had a history of moodiness. They said he argued with his elder sister on Wednesday over money she borrowed from him and failed to return, after which he went into the bedroom where his body was found 10 hours later.

A note saying "Here is all that I have, take what you please," was found on the dead man's bed along with 1,000 baht (US$24.42, Â€20.22 ) in cash, Mongkol said."

Category: Death; Replies: 67

Comments

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Nigel	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 11:31 AM Nigel's 8th Law makes me believe this could be true: If you can imagine someone, somewhere doing something, no matter how stupid, someone, somewhere will do it.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 12:50 PM Superglue isn't powerful enough though maybe if the guy used resin! Or one of those mix 2 liquids together glues
Bobo	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 12:57 PM Superglue not powerful enough? Prove it, Sharruma. Got a webcam? I'll pay you $20.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 01:01 PM I think the guy would have ripped his mouth open... unless he had just o.d.'ed.
Bobo	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 04:11 PM Sharruma I swear to god. I want to see this. I will pay you $50 if you let me watch you superglue your nose and mouth shut. Do you have a Paypal account and a webcam?
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 04:20 PM Bobo, you're getting obsessive.
~sShimmeRr~ in Adelaide, Australia Member	Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 \| 02:00 AM haha oh dear
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 \| 02:36 AM Hey maybe I'm wrong maybe the stuff in thailand actually works all I know is the stuff in the US doesn't stick that well. As CP suggests he'd just tear his mouth open, the desire to live outweighs everything and superglue mixed with saliva is not very sticky, especially once it's dried. CP also suggests he might've od'd, I think this is most likely as he poured superglue into his nose. Or as I suggested earlier, maybe he used a resin, the stuff that usually comes in two bottles and you have to mix it because of how powerful an adhesive it is. And Bobo, why do you want me sick/dead? all I said was superglue wasn't that powerful. it's still toxic. and where did I say I was willing to poison myself for chicken feed? $50, pah I wouldn't wipe my nose one it.
Reynard Muldrake	Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 \| 12:07 PM Bobo works for the Super Glue company! He can't stand to hear anyone say Super Glue doesn't stick that well. It can stick a construction worker's hardhat to a hanging metal beam, you know.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 \| 08:07 AM I don't know...If he just put some glue on the rim of him nostril, and then held his nose until it dried, it COULD work, assuming the moisture in his nose didn't keep the glue from drying. I would think his mouth would have been a lot trickier. A lot more moisture, and if he's still holding his nose, he might not be able to get it into the right dry places to work. His body would have forced his lungs to breathe at some point. That's the same reason that people drown...their lungs fill with water when their body forces them to take a deep breath for oxygen. The bodies desires can at some point outweight the mind's desires in circumstances like this.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 \| 08:08 AM Oh...and from personal experience a little pulling will get you unstuck - I have glued my fingers to objects & themselves before.
David B. Member	Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 \| 10:36 AM I think cyanoacrylate based glues usually use moisture from their immediate environment in order to cure.
bobo	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 09:54 AM David B. is right, and Sharrumma is a morrunna. Superglue REQUIRES water to work. If you line your lips with it, you will NOT be able to pull them apart. And Sharrumma - Cyanoacrylate (superglue) is NOT poisonous. It has been used for decades in emergency rooms (the very recent reformulation was NOT designed to be 'more safe', it was designed to be more flexible.) Furthermore, the idea of using resin epoxy is absurd. It takes at least 30 seconds to set, in which time an exothermic reaction heats up the mixture so hot that all we'd get is a Sharrumma with a mouthful of slime saying "Ooo! Hot! Hot goo!"
bobo	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 09:56 AM So Sharrumma, check the MSDS on cyanoacrylate and reconsider. You won't be poisoned.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 03:36 PM It seems like our forum gets a lot of 'experts;' experts on the Loch Ness Monster, experts on DNA Activation, experts on super glue, and so on. I wonder if these people just search google for threads they can rant on.
David B. Member	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 06:10 PM Nah! Some of us just hang around and wait for the threads to come to us.
bobo	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 07:51 PM I did my doctoral dissertation on polymers. The seal would be complete before Morunna could reach for a kitchen knife, which she would need, to slice a hole in her cheek to breathe through. $75.
Cenitina	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 08:47 PM I'll pitch in $20 if I can watch too
Smerk in to mischief Member	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 09:05 PM Okay...looking on the <a href="http://www.supergluecorp.com/removingsuperglue.html">Removing Superglue</a> section of the Superglue website, it does sound highly unlikely that you could superglue your lips together successfully. Anyhow, I'm sure that there are more efficient ways of killing yourself than supergluing your nose and mouth shut... What a waste...
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 \| 10:21 PM The title of this thread should have been... "Idiot does humanity a favor!" 😖
bobo	Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 \| 04:02 PM Smerk, did you read the page? Morruna would black out before the acetone started working.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 \| 06:32 PM The problem here is that the news articles weren't very specific. "Superglue" is such a generic term. It could have been dozens of materials, from cyanoacrylate glue to something that the guy made by boiling down fish and old tires. Sharruma is correct about cyanoacrylate glue, though: it is toxic. That's why they have all the warning labels on it saying not to use it in a ventilated area and not to sniff the fumes. The ways it is used in emergency rooms is different from the way that this guy may have used it. In hospitals it is used externally, to hold together skin. The Thai man actually stuck it in his nose, which means that he would be inhaling it. Sharruma and Maegan were also correct in noting that saliva would interfere with the superglue. Even though it is used medically, it's not used internally or inside the mouth for that reason. It is used on the skin's surface after the blood and whatever has been wiped away. The man in Thailand may have spread whatever stuff he used on the outside of his lips and pressed them together, though, which may work. It would still have to be very strongly-bonding and fast-setting, though, because before too long he would have passed out (especially if he was sitting there inhaling the fumes), and then his body would have tried to force his mouth open to breathe.
Smerk in to mischief Member	Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 \| 06:43 PM bobo - yes, I did read the page. Did you? Acci - my thoughts exactly!
bobo	Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 \| 11:45 PM 1) Cyanoacrylate IS NOT TOXIC. The fumes from CA are a vaporized form of the cyanoacrylate monomer that irritate sensitive membranes in the eyes, nose and throat. They immediately are polymerized by the moisture in the membranes and become inert. They do not penetrate into human internal systems. 2) CA works just fine internally. Cyanoacrylates have been successful in grafting skin, bone and cartilage; repairing eyes; closing dangerously ballooned blood vessels in the abdomen; and stopping spinal fluid leaks. 3) Accipiter and Smerk, you people are morons, and I am a Ph.D.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 12:20 AM Cyanoacrylates are synthesized by heating a formaldehyde/alkyl cyanoacetate mixture. They can thus break down into formaldehyde and alkyl cyanoacetate. Now, formaldehyde is what is used by decontamination teams to kill off every single living thing (including viruses) in a room. But you're saying that cyanoacrylates aren't toxic? I repeat, cyanoacrylate glues don't work well when mixed with saliva. And what has your being a Ph. D. have to do with anything? For all I know, you could have a doctorate in aerobic training.
Hitchiker	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 01:48 AM Cyanoacrylates are one-part, room-temperature curing adhesives that are available in viscosities ranging from water-thin liquids to thixotropic gels. When confined in a thin film between two surfaces Cyanoacrylates undergo anionic polymerisation in the presence of a weak base, such as water, and are stabilised through the addition of a weak acid. When the adhesive contacts a surface, trace amounts of water of other species present on the surface neutralise the acidic stabiliser in the adhesive, resulting in the rapid polymerisation of the cyanoacrylate Cyanoacrylates develop approximately 80% of their utimate tensile strength by the time they fixture (generally <3 secs.) I am an adhesives specialist. Cyanoacrylates are non toxic, some are used to replace sutures.
Bobo	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 10:28 AM Accipiter gets an F in high school chemistry. "Cyanoacrylates are synthesized by heating a formaldehyde/alkyl cyanoacetate mixture, and can thus break down into formaldehyde and alkyl cyanoacetate (and is therefore poisonous.)" That's like saying "Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and can thus break down into hydrogen and oxygen, and is therefore flammable." Accipiter, the FDA has determined that CA is not toxic. Your pathetic understanding of science will not change that. And as I said before, my doctoral dissertation was on polymers.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 11:36 AM Um, could you please calm down?
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 11:36 AM I don't think the breakdown of superglue is totally common knowledge. Give 'em a break.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 02:57 PM Bobo, for one who goes around handing out grades in chemistry, you're not doing too well yourself. There is a bit of a difference between a water molecule breaking down into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and cyanoacrylates breaking down into formaldehyde and cyanoacetate. When hydrogen and oxygen combine to create water, it's an exothermic reaction, meaning that it gives off energy. This means that it can happen spontaneously, without the need for energy to be added. It also means that energy is needed to break water apart. Water left to itself will not break down (unless you want to get into things like proton decay and whatnot). When combining formaldehyde and cyanoacetate, heat is applied. This produces a monomer by an endothermic reaction, which does not occur spontaneously because it requires the addition of energy. It can, however, break down easily. The cyanoacrylate polymer degrades by hydrolytic reaction into oligomers, releasing formaldehyde. As previously stated, formaldehyde is toxic. By modifying the alkoxycarbonyl you can increase the stability and reduce the toxicity of the product of the cyanoacrylate's polymerization reaction by creating longer chained polymers (or such was the theory when last I heard it), but they will still release some formaldehyde. Incidentally, water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and used to cause combustion. Like I said, though, it requires energy input.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 02:59 PM Yeah, what Acci said. hrumph
Bobo	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 05:44 PM If you google the terms "cyanoacrylate" and "toxic" you will find that it's NON-toxic. I don't know why Accipiter continues to insist that the pathetically small amount of formaldehyde released is poisonous. The entire scientific community disagrees with him.
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 06:10 PM God almighty. I thought I was bad, but you obsessive glue geeks take the cake.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 07:34 PM Why do I insist that the formaldehyde is poisonous? Because it is. Is the formaldehyde produced by cyanoacrylate glue poisonous enough to kill a person? Only if that person is using superglue by the gallon. Is it enough to cause damage to tissues? Yes it is, even in small amounts. And if you look on Google, you will find plenty of sites that agree with me. For example, according to the FDA (which Bobo himself seems to consider a valid source): The hydrolytic degradation of polymers (e.g., cyanoacrylate polymers) to smaller oligomers involves a hydrolysis reaction and release of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde as a by-product of cyanoacrylate hydrolytic degradation and the resultant cytotoxic or histotoxic effects have been reported and documented in research and medical journals. and: Hydrolytic degradation of polymers (e.g., cyanoacrylate polymers) to smaller oligomers involves a hydrolysis reaction. Release of formaldehyde as a by-product of cyanoacrylate hydrolytic degradation and the resultant cytotoxic or histotoxic effects have been reported and documented in research and medical journals. Specifically, the degradation products of cyanoacrylate adhesives could accumulate in tissues and lead to significant histotoxicity characterized by both acute and chronic inflammation. The literature shows that the rate of formation of the formaldehyde decreases with increase in the length of alkyl groups and the molecular weight of the cyanoacrylate polymers. and: FDA believes that cyanoacrylate topical tissue adhesives addressed by this guidance document are significant risk devices Also, according to eMedicine: The shorter-chain derivatives tend to have a higher degree of tissue toxicity than the longer-chain derivatives do. and: Inflammation, tissue necrosis, granulation formation, and wound breakdown can occur when cyanoacrylates are implanted subcutaneously. and: The histologic toxicity is thought to be related to the by-products of degradation, cyanoacetate and formaldehyde. From the Miracle Glue website: Although not labeled as such, over-the-counter Super Glue products contain methyl alcohol. . .which was studied extensively for its potential medical applications and was rejected due to its potential tissue toxicity such as inflammation or local foreign body reactions. Methyl alcohol has a short molecular chain which contributes to these complications.
Cinderella's Anus	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 08:47 PM And if you drink three gallons of water, you'll get hyponatremia and die. So, water is toxic. Your argument is ridiculous.
bobo	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 10:05 PM Cinderella's anus is correct. Accipiter, by your definition of 'toxic', absolutely EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET is toxic. Too much of anything will kill you, and even in little bits, free radicals from anything we eat damage cells. Stupid, stupid argument. Again, I encourage anyone to google "cyanoacrylate" and "toxic" and check out how NON-TOXIC it is (and the Miracle Glue people are full of crap, they're just trying to sell you different glue.)
Taranchoola	Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 \| 12:07 AM yeah, shut up accipiter and let the kid glue his mouth shut, I'll throw in $20 too.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 \| 05:29 AM I've had 3 gallons of water, and I didn't get sick. But I wasn't swallowing glue at the same time...so maybe it doesn't count.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 \| 01:59 PM If you drink gallons of water, you might get sick. And if you drink 7 milliliters of Chloramine-T, you'll likely die within minutes. So what? We're not discussing those. We're talking about the forms of cyanoacrylates that are found in cheap superglue, the cyanoacrylates that form polymers containing short chains of alkyl ester groups, the ones that break down and release formaldehyde. Where are you getting the idea that in order for something to be toxic, it has to cause death? For something to be toxic, it can cause death, or it can cause damage, or it can simply impair an organism. Yes, anything on Earth can be considered toxic if you don't qualify your definition of toxicity by giving a dosage limit. So let's give a dosage limit. Let's make the limit. . .5 mg/kg to cause death. So, is water toxic now? No. Is tapioca? Not unless you have some strong allergies to it. Are the most poisonous snakes in the world, the members of the family Hydrophidae, toxic? No, even they don't fit this strict definition. Nor does arsenic. But formaldehyde does. Formaldehyde is classed in the same level of toxicity as cyanide, strychnine, and phosgene. Are you going to argue that those poisons aren't toxic? As I said, it would take gallons of superglue to release enough formaldehyde to cause death. It does not take much, however, to release enough to cause damage. It is not just me saying that, either. The FDA, which Bobo previously used as a source and thus apparently considers to be a legitimate authority, agrees with me. The JAMA has published articles that agree with me. The makers of superglue agree with me. Web-based medical sites agree with me. I'm not simply making unfounded claims. If you're arguing otherwise, then you're arguing against one or both of two long-established facts: you're either saying that cyanoacrylates such as methyl cyanoacrylates don't hydrolyse into formaldehyde (something that we've known about since the 1950's or 60's, at the latest), or else that formaldehyde isn't toxic (refer to the definition of toxicity given above). If you can provide any evidence supporting your argument against either of those facts, then do so. Otherwise, you're simply disagreeing without any basis. And throwing insults around neither proves your case nor leads anybody take a high opinion of your level of maturity. PS: I Googled "cyanoacrylate" and "toxic", like Bobo said to. The results did not support his claims. Most of the links displayed on the first page mention toxic cyanoacrylates. Furthermore, if you Google a form of acrylate that forms short alkyl ester groups, such as "methyl", "acrylate", and "toxic", you find an even greater number.
Doogifer Member	Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 \| 07:37 PM Accipiter, shut up. Just shut up. Superglue is not toxic. If it was, manufacturers would force them to put a warning label on it that sez TOXIC. And I'm holding a package. No TOXIC label. Oh, I suppose YOU know something the federal government doesn't? And I suppose that if you keep babbling you're going to convince them? Just shut up. Shut up. SHUT UP.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 \| 11:11 PM Let's take a look at this bottle of furniture polish. Hmm, nope, nothing on that about it being toxic. How about this can of insect poison? Nothing there. This can of polyurethane? Nope. None of them have a big label saying TOXIC. So I suppose that means that they're all safe to eat? My previous posting still stands. Try reading it, Doogifer, since it includes a mention of what the Federal government knows about cyanoacrylates. As does the posting before that one.
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 04:53 AM A 37% solution of formaldehyde has a LD50 (basically a dose lethal in 50% of cases) of 100mg/kg (in rats). Without data as to the strength of the solution (if any), amount ingested, and weight of the individual, any estimate as to the toxicity of the procedure is just blather. (In other words, your both wrong!)
David B. Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 06:27 AM And yes, it was deliberate.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 01:57 PM Solutions of formaldehyde, generically called formalin, are made by combining water, formaldehyde, and (most commonly) methyl alcohol. The methanol is needed to stabilize the formaldehyde, which is a very reactive chemical and would otherwise tend to oxidize into formic acid. Formalin is used instead of pure formaldehyde because it is less reactive or toxic. Formaldehyde not in such a buffered solution, such as that released by the hydrolysis of cyanoacrylates, has an LD50 of less than 5 mg/kg. All of that is irrelevant, though. Knowing "the strength of the solution (if any), amount ingested, and weight of the individual" is not necessary to simply determine that poisoning has occurred. We are not trying to determine an exact LD50 for cyanoacrylate glues. We are not even discussing lethal amounts. We are determining simply that they can cause tissue damage through toxicity. When the original short-chain forming cyanoacrylates were first used for medical treatment, they were known to cause histotoxic reactions leading to tissue necrosis. This has been known since the 1960's at least. It has been documented, tested, and verified. It is a very localized toxicity rather than a systemic, so the weight of the individual is irrelevant. That is why the FDA has only recently approved some (not all) cyanoacrylate glues for treating injuries: they had to wait until more stable long-chain forming cyanoacrylates were developed, tested, and shown to be less toxic than the earlier ones. The more toxic ones, however, are still used in store-bought superglues because they are cheaper to produce.
Doogifer Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 04:04 PM Accipiter, this discussion was about someone gluing their mouth shut. Nobody is interested in you babbling about the definition of 'toxic.'
Accipiter Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 04:24 PM Doogifer, this discussion involved the toxicity of superglue before I ever started making any comments. You yourself were apparently interested enough in the topic to make your own contribution to it earlier on. If you're not interested in discussing the toxicity, then don't post about it. If you're not wanting to even read about that sort of thing, then don't read it.
Doogifer Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 09:49 PM The manufacturers say that superglue is non-toxic. Wouldn't they get sued if they were lying?
Accipiter Member	Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 10:23 PM As I mentioned before, some manufacturers do mention it's toxicity. If others don't mention it, I don't know why. Maybe they use a different substance in their glues. Or maybe they don't feel that the warning is needed, assuming that the glue is going to be used on broken vases and model airplanes and whatever. Those other products I mentioned also don't say that they are toxic, so it seems that it's not needed on every potentially toxic product. Who decides what gets put on warnings, anyway? I think that the FDA decides with things like foods and medicines, but for hobby glues and things like that I haven't a clue. I also wonder how common it is for people to kill themselves with superglue? I haven't seen any other cases of it mentioned, and the article was saying that it's supposed to be the first such death in Thailand. It seems to be a rather odd choice. Maybe he wanted to make an impression.
David B. Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 04:27 AM Accipiter: Fri Jun 24, 2005 \| 11:57 AM We are not trying to determine an exact LD50 for cyanoacrylate glues. We are not even discussing lethal amounts. We are determining simply that they can cause tissue damage through toxicity. Perhaps I was confused by your earlier comments... Accipiter: Tue Jun 21, 2005 \| 04:32 PM Sharruma is correct about cyanoacrylate glue, though: it is toxic. That's why they have all the warning labels on it saying not to use it in a ventilated area and not to sniff the fumes. The later sideways move of the discussion into formaldehyde, and the arbitrary 5mg/kg is just irrelevant. "Toxic" has a specific definition. Toxic - A chemical falling within any of the following categories: 1. A chemical with a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 50 milligrams per kilogram but not more than 500 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered orally to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each. 2. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 200 milligrams per kilogram but not more than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered by continuous contact for 24 hours (or less if death occurs within 24 hours) with the bare skin of albino rabbits weighing between two and three kilograms each. 3. A chemical that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of more than 200 parts per million but not more than 2,000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, or more than two milligrams per liter but not more than 20 milligrams per liter of mist, fume, or dust, when administered by continuous inhalation for one hour (or less if death occurs within 1 hour) to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each. Anything worse than the above is "Highly Toxic". Regardless of its chemical decomposition, a compounds toxicity is measured by oral, dermal or inhalatory exposure of the raw compund itself. In the case of Cyanoacrylate Ester these figures are... LD50(oral): >5000mg/kg LD50(dermal): >2000mg/kg LC50(inhalation): (not on my MSDS, Anyone?) By the standard criteria, Cyanoacrylate Ester is not classed as toxic.
Rita	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 09:49 AM Who the hell cares? It's a story about glue. I don't mind people arguing about it, but calling each other morons and telling each other to try gluing your mouth shut is just uncalled for. There's no reason to be rude about it, as it makes you seem immature. But whatever.
David B. Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 01:34 PM I gues we're all STUCK in a rut. I'm not sure what the CURE is, perhaps to ADHERE to the topic and not get into any CRAZY GLUE-fuelled fantasies about fitting another poster up with a CEMENT overcoat. This is not the first time a flame war has, or nearly has, erupted on this site you know! Somepeople just sin and RE-SIN, not caring how much they GUM up the boards for others. Until the policies on such things HARDEN, I guess we're STUCK with it. Before you know it we'll have descended into the realm of puns. As my old Yorkshire Grandfather used to say, "eE, POXY puns, there's nowt else quite so TACKY!" We had quite a BOND between us, he and I. Don't believe me? Oh well, SUTURE self. 😊
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 02:02 PM :lol: Oh god, the punnery.
Rita	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 03:43 PM Very nice, David B. Well said!
Doogifer Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 07:17 PM David B's argument is absolutely correct. Cyanoacrylate is not toxic, despite Accipiter's tendentious reading of the FDA's papers on the subject. So by the standard criteria, Accipiter is, indeed, a moron.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 08:00 PM Doogifer, you need to learn how to argue. Listen to Rita, and pay attention to the methods of people like David B. and Cranky Media Guy. They read the other peoples' comments, check their facts, present their points logically, and try to answer their opponents' points. Simply throwing around insults doesn't accomplish anything other than to lead people to have a rather low opinion of your level of maturity.
EvilSupahFly	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 08:37 PM While I found this thread very amusing, I'd have to agree with all those who said that arguing over something so frivilous as to whether Cyanoacrylate Ester (or any of the name brand counter parts) is toxic, lethal, or emits formaldehyde is completely pointless. The poor sod in Thailand killed himself by a here-to-forth unusual choice of substances. Case closed. I mean, who around here is going to try it themselves? Unless of course Bobo here has a pay-pal account and a webcam and is willing to prove his point for us? I'd pay to see that! :D I really do need to confess though that I and the guy next to me were highly entertained by this discussion and look forward to future heated debates. :lol:
FireFly Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 08:38 PM Yeah Doog, lighten up! Grow Up! Im tired of all this calling people morons and stuff.
EvilSupahFly	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 08:56 PM Is it just me, or do the Google ads at the top of the page seem.... conincidental? Planned even... Oh, hell, I'll just say it - are the Google Ads about Depression and Suicide intentional? Or am I just stoned...?
Doogifer Member	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 10:02 PM Has Accipiter admitted defeat? I want to hear him ask for forgiveness and concede his total moronity and poo-poo headedness.
Saint Cad	Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 \| 11:25 PM Isn't arguing about cyanoacrylate poisoning in this case a little like arguing about lead poisoning when someone shoots himself in the head?
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.