Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:42 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:13:44 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:59:27 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Diogenes wrote >> >>>> What they WON'T do is stop being hoons and/or actually start >>>> denouncing hoons for the stain on the motorcycling community that they >>>> are. And the main reason for this is that by and large they ARE the >>>> motorcycling community. >> >>> I own and ride a 1200cc air-cooled twin which makes about 75hp at the >>> rear wheel and weighs about 250kg. >> >>> That's not very 'hoonish' in my book. >> >>> Oh and there is my Suzuki & HRD outfit (that's got a double sidecar on >>> it), I'm not sure how fast it goes but it gets a bit scary over 120kph >>> so I never really tried. >> >>> My next bike purchase? >>> >>> Well I'm trying to decide between a SYM HD200 scooter and an Aprillia >>> Scarabeo 200 and wondering if I'd be better with something just a little >>> bigger like a SYM Citycom 300i or Aprillia 250. >>> >>> Oh... the 300i makes 24ps and it's the most powerful of that lot. >>> >>> I don't really think I'm part of the supersports rider demographic >>> you're making me out to be (and nor to be honest are any of the regulars >>> I've met from this newsgroup). >> >> I think an _intelligent_ reader would have deduced that I was not not >> saying that you, personally, were a hoon. Go back and do Engish >> Comprehension 101 _again_, will you, please, there's a good lad... >Yes but you did say that the majority of the newsgroup either were hoons >or were apologists for them or words to that effect. Yes, and what part of "none of that infers or implies that you, Geoff, are a hoon" do you still not get? BTW, it also does not infer or imply that you , Geoff, are NOT a hoon. >I'm just wondering who you are specifically putting in each category? Keep wondering. ;-) ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:43 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:18:55 +1100, CrazyCam <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: > ><snip> > >> Exactly! It's the hypocrisy of then complaining about the lower speed >> limits which is what I'm pointing to here. ;-) > >Och, Gerry, a wee bit of hypocrisy every now and then is good for you. Ideed! As president of the Australian Hypocites Assn, I couldn't agree with you more. ;-) ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: theo on 3 Feb 2010 18:45 On Feb 4, 7:37 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:49:10 -0800 (PST), theo > > > > > > <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > >On Feb 3, 6:19 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:07:05 -0800 (PST), theo > > >> <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > > >> I'll make it easy for you , Theo: > > >> I said: > > >> >> >> I think an _intelligent_ reader would have deduced that I was not not > >> >> >> saying that you, personally, were a hoon. Go back and do Engish > >> >> >> Comprehension 101 _again_, will you, please, there's a good lad.... > > >> You said: > > >> >> >Are you saying Geoff inferred? I thought you implied. > > >> I said: > > >> >> Geoff WAS inferring. I was NOT implying he, personally, was a hoon, > >> >> and you, GO AWAY !!! ;-) > > >> You said: > > >> >You just failed English Comprehension 101 Gerry. "I thought you > >> >implied" translates to "I inferred". :-) > > >> Since it was YOU who said "I thought you implied", it was YOU who > >> inferred. And, ergo, it was YOU who failed English Comprehension 101. > > >Duh! Failed again Gerry. "I thought you implied", was said by me and I > >said it translates to "I inferred", I being me, not you. Your ego > >betrays you. > > No, dear Theo, it is you who is as dense as a plank. > > See if you can follow it THIS time, eh? > > [1] You said (talking about ME) "I thought you implied." > > [2] I (that's ME) replied "I was NOT implying..." > > [3] You then introduced a red herring by saying "I thought you > implied" translates to "I inferred". It's a red herring because > you're talking about YOU, when up until that point we were talking > about whether or not _ I _ was implying (something about Geoff.) We > were not talking about whether YOU were inferring or implying, we were > talking about ME implying (or not). You failed EC101 and now also > Logic 101. Keep it up. ;-) Oh dear. Stop digging mate. Beer? Theo
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:45 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:33:51 -0800 (PST), theo <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >On Feb 4, 7:16�am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > >> So we'll just accept that as "reality" and just resign ourselves to >> the "fact" that it won't ever change? � > >No. There's no reason w shouldn't try for change. > >> Ba-a-a �Ba-a-a �Ba-a-a... � At least the sheep have learned the utter >> futility of endlessly whinging abou it if you've convinced yourself >> that you're powerless do anything about it... �Of course, to do so, >> you'd have to have given up on democracy as a viable system. > >Our democracy is dangerously leaning towards the American model which >is not a viable Democracy. Not even sure it is a democracy at all. > >Our health system is also falling apart due to the unwillingness of >Gov'ts to fix it and pushing people to 'go private' and leave the >inadequate National health system to those who are prepared to put up >with it. And then penalise those people in the private sytem with >unrealistic rebates. Last year I needed to have my gallbladder >removed. My surgeon saw me in his office before and after the op, did >the three hour op and saw me twice in the hospital. Total atendance >time around 4.5 hours. For this he charged me $2100. The payment from >the Private Medical fund and Medicare came to $765, leaving me $1300 >to pay. It appears the scheduled fee for this service is about $900 or >$200 per hour. We used to charge more than that per hour to have a >techo check out a server. Getting the public to pay 1.4% of their >taxable income towards the National health service is obviously >unrealistic. So that's another whinge, is it? ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:47
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:15:56 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:09:46 -0800 (PST), theo >> <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 3, 4:04 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:59:27 +1100, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>>> I don't really think I'm part of the supersports rider demographic >>>>> you're making me out to be (and nor to be honest are any of the regulars >>>>> I've met from this newsgroup). >>>> I think an _intelligent_ reader would have deduced that I was not not >>>> saying that you, personally, were a hoon. Go back and do Engish >>>> Comprehension 101 _again_, will you, please, there's a good lad... >>> Are you saying Geoff inferred? I thought you implied. >> >> Geoff WAS inferring. I was NOT implying he, personally, was a hoon, >> and you, GO AWAY !!! ;-) >He's a valuable, informative and amusing addition to the thread. Clue: I did include a "winkie", Geoff. ================= Onya bike Gerry |