 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOT com> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
> > Ah, I dunno
> >
>
> Give in?
[snip]
> I have dined out on that story for years :-)
Excellent story. I take it the test wouldn't otherwise have been that short,
just ended up that way as a result of your initiative?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> About the only thing that can go wrong with a tray-load drive is if the
> disk isn't sitting in it properly, and it gets mashed when the tray
> tries to shut. USUALLY the servo system notices this and stops trying to
> shut the door. Depending on how cheap the drive is...
>
Or the drive fails to stop the disk before ejecting it and it's still
rotating when the tray comes out. You would be surprised how fast the
disc leaves the tray from even a small bump...
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> I *was* going to buy a Mazda RX8. Almost the same price. [Obviously both
> are second-hand.] It has a 3.0 L Wankel engine, agressive styling,
> bucket seats, the whole lot.
>
> ...but then I took it for a test drive. Man, it JUST DOESN'T MOVE!
You could have tried pressing the gas pedal, you know? The thing about
wankel is that it constantly rotates in just one direction, so it can
reach incredible rpm's. It probably wakes up when an otto-engine hits
the limiter (around 6-8krpm).
> I have since found out that the road tax alone is £500/year - that's
> more than my *insurance*! o_O
Well yes, it's not necessarily a cheap car to own :).
> Well maybe it just *looked* 30 years old then. It was really, really
> rusty. (But then, it was a Land Rover.) For example, there was a hole
> under the accelerator pedal where you can watch the road go past below.
Well yes, Land rover has incredibly traditional look and all, also it
one of the toughest (if not The toughest) cars ever done - they just
keep running.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You’re getting closer but not too close.
You're Amish?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, some cars actually didn't *have* seatbelts, and so
> you'd have to go fit them. But yeah, today that doesn't happen much. My
> point is really that you now cannot modify almost any aspect of the car
> because there's so much high-tech stuff in there.
Well yes. I guess they've been standard since the 70's.
> Sure is! I guess it got five stars from NCAP for a reason. (That would
> also explain the huge door pillars that obscure the view of the road...)
Well yes. It makes it possible for you to stay alive and get hurt badly
for the rest of your life from the same speed you would've simply died
on your old car :p.
> It just means that if you want to make any modifications at all, you
> have to go through Renault, which limits choice and increases the price.
> (Not to mention that we don't *have* Renault dealers in England...)
Not necessarily, you can achieve the same safety level by doing things
yourself than with your old car. But you don't actually want that,
'cause you can get drastically better safety level by doing things right.
> My car doesn't *have* a warranty anyway. ;-)
Not anymore. It had when it was new.
>> That's probably in the service program, right?
>
> Probably. If I had one.
The service company has one, you can ask them for it. They'll also know
what to do when you'll take your car to be serviced.
>> If you have a properly working automatic wiper option, you simply don't
>> need to touch the lever yourself except for some rare wipe-once
>> -situations - just keep it in the automatic position.
>
> Doesn't work like that. Like I say, automatic seems to just mean "random
> speed". Doesn't appear to be related to the road conditions in any way.
> (Although I presume if it were to rain really hard, the wipers would
> speed up.) The long and short of it is that if I find that I can't see,
> I need the wipers to wipe NOW, not in 20 seconds' time.
Like I said, *properly working* automatic wipers work like that.
This for sure is the automation and not the speed-adjustment you mentioned?
> If I *ever* get a nice girl to sit in my car, I'm not sure they'll be
> any picnic stuff happening. 0;-)
Why not? Girls like picnics.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> I've yet to meet a car where the wipers *don't* leave smears. My
> previous two cars have both had dozens of wiper blades, all to no avail.
>
Welcome to look and see.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> About the only thing that can go wrong with a tray-load drive is if the
>> disk isn't sitting in it properly, and it gets mashed when the tray
>> tries to shut. USUALLY the servo system notices this and stops trying to
>> shut the door. Depending on how cheap the drive is...
>>
>
> Or the drive fails to stop the disk before ejecting it and it's still
> rotating when the tray comes out. You would be surprised how fast the
> disc leaves the tray from even a small bump...
I have never seen any drive, ever, do this. Not even lame laptop drives.
(I do, however, have a very old portable CD player. You stop the disk by
opening the lid...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Well yes. I guess they've been standard since the 70's.
FWIW, they were required on cars starting in '62 or '64 or so in the USA.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b6c992d$1@news.povray.org...
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> > Well yes. I guess they've been standard since the 70's.
> FWIW, they were required on cars starting in '62 or '64 or
so in the USA.
I didn't remember when, so I looked it up:
Most seat belt legislation in the United States is left to
the states. However, the first seat belt law was a federal
law which took effect on January 1, 1968 that required all
vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all
designated seating positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
Is there anything for which there isn't an article at wikipedia?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6ca9e1@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
>
> Is there anything for which there isn't an article at
wikipedia?
Doesn't seem to have anything about DungBeatle... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b6ca9e1@news.povray.org...
> > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
> >
> > Is there anything for which there isn't an article at
> wikipedia?
> Doesn't seem to have anything about DungBeatle... :)
Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dung_beetle
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6cb1fa@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:4b6ca9e1@news.povray.org...
> > > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
> > > Is there anything for which there isn't an article at
> > wikipedia?
> > Doesn't seem to have anything about DungBeatle... :)
>
> Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dung_beetle
Not at all clsoe enough! :)
DungBeatle, like the crappy Beatle...
Remember them? The Beatles?
Maybe not...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"DungBeatle" <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote in message
news:4b6cb714$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b6cb1fa@news.povray.org...
> > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > > news:4b6ca9e1@news.povray.org...
> > > > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
> > > > Is there anything for which there isn't an article at
> > > wikipedia?
> > > Doesn't seem to have anything about DungBeatle... :)
> >
> > Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dung_beetle
>
> Not at all clsoe enough! :)
clsoe?
try "close"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have never seen any drive, ever, do this. Not even lame laptop drives.
And I've seen 2 tray drives do this. It's rare, but hazard.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, I dunno
>>>
>> Give in?
> [snip]
>> I have dined out on that story for years :-)
>
> Excellent story. I take it the test wouldn't otherwise have been that short,
> just ended up that way as a result of your initiative?
>
>
I don’t know how long a test normally takes. My bike test seemed to last
hours, subjectively. That test was over before we had driven to where
the testing normally takes place. I really thought that I had failed it
before it had started.
I also missed out, to improve the story, that I had been riding a
motorbike for about five years and driving a car illegally without a
licence for a year. I was also brought up in a fire station so I had no
fear of fire engines.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> You’re getting closer but not too close.
>
> You're Amish?
>
LOL It took me a couple of seconds to get it :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Doesn't it have an aux input, just get an iPod or something, that's
>> what I do.
>
> There's instructions in the manual for how to enable or disable aux
> input. But, helpfully, it doesn't say WHERE IT IS.
Just a guess, look in the glove compartment.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b6cb1fa@news.povray.org...
> > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > > news:4b6ca9e1@news.povray.org...
> > > > DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
> > > > Is there anything for which there isn't an article at
> > > wikipedia?
> > > Doesn't seem to have anything about DungBeatle... :)
> >
> > Close enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dung_beetle
> Not at all clsoe enough! :)
> DungBeatle, like the crappy Beatle...
> Remember them? The Beatles?
> Maybe not...
It was a joke.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:35:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> Doing a test at the proving ground and the test objective was to get
>> away from something that was about to explode as fast as you could? ;-)
>
> I've done that in a lifeboat, though.
Hopefully as part of an exercise and not because it was an unplanned
situation?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:54:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
[...]
Wow, that's a good story. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:32:31 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> About the only thing that can go wrong with a tray-load drive is if the
>> disk isn't sitting in it properly, and it gets mashed when the tray
>> tries to shut. USUALLY the servo system notices this and stops trying
>> to shut the door. Depending on how cheap the drive is...
>>
>>
> Or the drive fails to stop the disk before ejecting it and it's still
> rotating when the tray comes out. You would be surprised how fast the
> disc leaves the tray from even a small bump...
I've seen that happen several times.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:49:28 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:
> My previous car had those seatbelts that automatically pulled over you
> when you closed the door, I miss that...
So did mine - I had a friend visiting from England who had never
experienced one of those before, and he "freaked out" a little bit when
the belt started moving....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:35:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Doing a test at the proving ground and the test objective was to get
>>> away from something that was about to explode as fast as you could? ;-)
>> I've done that in a lifeboat, though.
>
> Hopefully as part of an exercise and not because it was an unplanned
> situation?
>
During a coxswain training course.
Using a compass and totally enclosed.
“The platform is to the North East, the wind’s from the South. Escape!”
Boy’s games LOL
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:54:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Wow, that's a good story. :-)
>
As I said, I’ve dined out on it for years LOL
It is true and I was slightly stunned afterwards, I felt that I didn’t
get a proper test. Add that to only having had two driving lessons and
one was two years before, the other was just to familiarise myself with
the car I was taking the test in. I feel as if I should take some more
as I get older and more responsible.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States
>
> Is there anything for which there isn't an article at wikipedia?
Yes, cppcheck. And its developers are pissed about their article getting
deleted, and thus not getting the free advertisement :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I *was* going to buy a Mazda RX8. Almost the same price. [Obviously both
>> are second-hand.] It has a 3.0 L Wankel engine, agressive styling,
>> bucket seats, the whole lot.
>>
>> ...but then I took it for a test drive. Man, it JUST DOESN'T MOVE!
>
> You could have tried pressing the gas pedal, you know?
I tried that. Nothing seems to happen. The car just feels heavy and slow.
> The thing about
> wankel is that it constantly rotates in just one direction
I'm pretty sure normal engines rotate in only one direction too. ;-)
Perhaps you ment there's no reciprocol motion?
>> Well maybe it just *looked* 30 years old then. It was really, really
>> rusty. (But then, it was a Land Rover.) For example, there was a hole
>> under the accelerator pedal where you can watch the road go past below.
>
> Well yes, Land rover has incredibly traditional look and all, also it
> one of the toughest (if not The toughest) cars ever done - they just
> keep running.
IME, the Land Rover can go places where other "off road" vehicles can't,
which is impressive. But IT IS NOT RELIABLE. They break down constantly.
(The again, I've only ever seen ancient ones...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I tried that. Nothing seems to happen. The car just feels heavy and slow.
Apparently 0-60 is 6.2 or 7.0 seconds depending on which engine it has, that
doesn't sound too slow to me.
As Eero said, you are probably used to a normal petrol engine where the
maximum torque is usually at quite low rpms and then fairly constant. With
the RX8 the torque builds up until it hits a maximum at quite high rpm, so
if you are trying to drive around at 1000 or 2000 rpm it *is* going to feel
slow.
> IME, the Land Rover can go places where other "off road" vehicles can't,
> which is impressive. But IT IS NOT RELIABLE. They break down constantly.
They are probably really simple to fix though, compared to newer cars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I tried that. Nothing seems to happen. The car just feels heavy and slow.
>
> Apparently 0-60 is 6.2 or 7.0 seconds depending on which engine it has,
> that doesn't sound too slow to me.
The infamous Acinonyx jubatus manages > 3.0 seconds, and it's MADE OF
MEAT! ;-)
...on a more related note, the car I actually bought manages 8.9
seconds. (But only according to the spec sheet, obviously.)
> As Eero said, you are probably used to a normal petrol engine where the
> maximum torque is usually at quite low rpms and then fairly constant.
> With the RX8 the torque builds up until it hits a maximum at quite high
> rpm, so if you are trying to drive around at 1000 or 2000 rpm it *is*
> going to feel slow.
So what you're saying is, it won't drive away from the curb quickly?
>> IME, the Land Rover can go places where other "off road" vehicles
>> can't, which is impressive. But IT IS NOT RELIABLE. They break down
>> constantly.
>
> They are probably really simple to fix though
Um...
> compared to newer cars.
Oh, right. Sure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So what you're saying is, it won't drive away from the curb quickly?
No, because if you're trying to do a fast start you can just give it more
rpms before engaging the clutch. What I'm saying is that to get the most
performance from the car you need to keep the rpms very high, this means
only changing up a gear when you get near the redline, and probably changing
down 2 or even 3 gears if you decide you suddenly want to overtake someone
(where normally you might only change down 1 gear).
It has what is known as a very narrow power band, and outside of that band
it sucks. A more "driveable" engine will have a more equal spread of power
across all rpms, and thus might seem more powerful when driving around town,
even if in a race it would be slower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> I don’t know how long a test normally takes.
In Finland they temp to be theoretical test + handling test + 30min in a
live traffic.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> So what you're saying is, it won't drive away from the curb quickly?
>
> No, because if you're trying to do a fast start you can just give it
> more rpms before engaging the clutch. What I'm saying is that to get
> the most performance from the car you need to keep the rpms very high,
> this means only changing up a gear when you get near the redline, and
> probably changing down 2 or even 3 gears if you decide you suddenly want
> to overtake someone (where normally you might only change down 1 gear).
Or you can have a turbocharged engine and you don't need to change down ;).
> It has what is known as a very narrow power band, and outside of that
> band it sucks. A more "driveable" engine will have a more equal spread
> of power across all rpms, and thus might seem more powerful when driving
> around town, even if in a race it would be slower.
Yep.
http://www.dragtimes.com/images_dyno/8792-2004-Mazda-RX-8-Dyno.jpg
Note that the measuring starts at 3krpm and hits the maximum 125 ft-lbs
(according to Google ~170Nm) at 6krpm and continues to 9krpm. As a
comparison, my 1.9TiD tops 320Nm somewhere around 1700rpm, hax max hp
(150) at 4krpm and hits a limiter at somewhere around 5krpm - so it's
stopping the pull where RX-8 is just beginning. Totally different
engines to drive and the RX-8 beats my 9-3 easily from the line, if the
driver just knows how to drive it (rev it high).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> temp
Tend. A brainfart.
> -Aero
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I don’t know how long a test normally takes.
>
> In Finland they temp to be theoretical test + handling test + 30min in a
> live traffic.
>
> -Aero
I’m talking about 30 years ago, there was no theoretical test in the UK
then. Only a driving in light traffic then set manoeuvres and a short
test of the Highway Code.
> Tend. A brainfart.
I say old chap! Are you sure that’s English? :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In Finland they temp to be theoretical test + handling test + 30min in a
> live traffic.
The handling test sounds cool :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://www.dragtimes.com/images_dyno/8792-2004-Mazda-RX-8-Dyno.jpg
Very interesting, I tried to look but couldn't find one.
> Note that the measuring starts at 3krpm and hits the maximum 125 ft-lbs
> (according to Google ~170Nm) at 6krpm and continues to 9krpm. As a
> comparison, my 1.9TiD tops 320Nm somewhere around 1700rpm, hax max hp
> (150) at 4krpm and hits a limiter at somewhere around 5krpm - so it's
> stopping the pull where RX-8 is just beginning.
Mine's similar: (the grey line, not the blue one!)
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/BMW20D177bhp.pdf
The main point is that at around 3500 rpm our diesel cars have 3x the torque
available as the RX8, and at 2000 rpm it's probably 5x or higher. That is a
huge amount of "feeling" for when you try to accelerate at low RPMs, the RX8
is going to feel *really* slow in these situations. Of course in the RX8
you can change down 2 or 3 gears to get similar levels of acceleration, I
guess it depends how often you feel like using a lot of power :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> The handling test sounds cool :-)
>
I think it's pretty good thing to exist. With a car you need to do the
handling test before you're allowed to drive within traffic (so called
B-card). I've also done BE (normal car with a heavy trailer) and A
(motorcycle) and they both demanded the handling test just before the
traffic test, so the training in traffic (demanded for motorcycle) is
allowed to be done even before the handling test. Luckily the driver
acadamy I drove the A-card in was a good one and checked that I can
handle even the basics of the cycle before entering traffic.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:35:33 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> As I said, I’ve dined out on it for years LOL It is true and I was
> slightly stunned afterwards, I felt that I didn’t get a proper test. Add
> that to only having had two driving lessons and one was two years
> before, the other was just to familiarise myself with the car I was
> taking the test in. I feel as if I should take some more as I get older
> and more responsible.
So you're saying we shouldn't ride in a car you're driving? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:28:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:35:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Doing a test at the proving ground and the test objective was to get
>>>> away from something that was about to explode as fast as you could?
>>>> ;-)
>>> I've done that in a lifeboat, though.
>>
>> Hopefully as part of an exercise and not because it was an unplanned
>> situation?
>>
>>
> During a coxswain training course.
>
> Using a compass and totally enclosed. “The platform is to the North
> East, the wind’s from the South. Escape!”
>
> Boy’s games LOL
LOL, sounds like you and my mate Tim (up in Edinburgh) have some similar
stories to share. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> So you're saying we shouldn't ride in a car you're driving? ;-)
>
> Jim
Two countries separated by a common language.
But then again who asked you if you wanted a lift? :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:43:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> So you're saying we shouldn't ride in a car you're driving? ;-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Two countries separated by a common language.
Yes indeed. ;-)
> But then again who asked
> you if you wanted a lift? :-P
The driver of the airport shuttle. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL, sounds like you and my mate Tim (up in Edinburgh) have some similar
> stories to share. :-)
>
When you move to Sin City, I’ll make a point of coming over for the
Craic and a bucket or two :D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:02:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> LOL, sounds like you and my mate Tim (up in Edinburgh) have some
>> similar stories to share. :-)
>>
>>
> When you move to Sin City, I’ll make a point of coming over for the
> Craic and a bucket or two :D
Deal! :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:02:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> LOL, sounds like you and my mate Tim (up in Edinburgh) have some
>>> similar stories to share. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> When you move to Sin City, I’ll make a point of coming over for the
>> Craic and a bucket or two :D
>
> Deal! :-)
>
Mine's a Glenmorangie
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:43:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> But then again who asked
>> you if you wanted a lift? :-P
>
> The driver of the airport shuttle. ;-)
>
Well pay ye'r thruppence and move down the bus. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:27:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Mine's a Glenmorangie
I suppose a Morangie would be a touch out of the price range. ;-) Though
I'm not sure that Tim can have that, though - he was a member of CAMRA
(he may well still be), but he's got a severe gluten allergy that
prevents him from actually drinking ale. There's probably not enough in
Scotch Whisky to be a problem for him, but we might also be advised to
bring port, just in case. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:32:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:43:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> But then again who asked
>>> you if you wanted a lift? :-P
>>
>> The driver of the airport shuttle. ;-)
>>
>>
> Well pay ye'r thruppence and move down the bus. :-P
Already done. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:27:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Mine's a Glenmorangie
>
> I suppose a Morangie would be a touch out of the price range. ;-) Though
> I'm not sure that Tim can have that, though - he was a member of CAMRA
> (he may well still be), but he's got a severe gluten allergy that
> prevents him from actually drinking ale. There's probably not enough in
> Scotch Whisky to be a problem for him, but we might also be advised to
> bring port, just in case. ;-)
>
> Jim
I can drink a pint of port with the best of them. :D BTW Stilton cheese
goes well with it.
But you can get 10yo Morangie for only about GBP 16.50
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>> Well pay ye'r thruppence and move down the bus. :-P
>
> Already done. ;-)
>
> Jim
:D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:29:58 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:27:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Mine's a Glenmorangie
>>
>> I suppose a Morangie would be a touch out of the price range. ;-)
>> Though I'm not sure that Tim can have that, though - he was a member of
>> CAMRA (he may well still be), but he's got a severe gluten allergy that
>> prevents him from actually drinking ale. There's probably not enough
>> in Scotch Whisky to be a problem for him, but we might also be advised
>> to bring port, just in case. ;-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I can drink a pint of port with the best of them. :D BTW Stilton cheese
> goes well with it.
Indeed it does!
> But you can get 10yo Morangie for only about GBP 16.50
That's not bad. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
