Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: G-S on 4 Feb 2010 02:28
> 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. ;-)
No... I'm asking, not wondering.
Of course you can dodge the question (but then it'd be you guilty of
From: G-S on 4 Feb 2010 02:29
> 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
I try not to look at guys when they are 'winkling'... 
 not that there's anything wrong with that.
From: G-S on 4 Feb 2010 02:34
> G-S wrote:
>> Diogenes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to
>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to trap
>>>>>> people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently, perfectly
>>>>>> legal manner.
>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the
>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think
>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality?
>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as
>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their
>>>> mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming
>>>> car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist).
>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active
>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can
>>> tell you all about it. ;-)
>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have a
>> problem with it.
>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where it's
>> used for such diverse and useful things as excessive superannuation
>> funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for retired pollies and
>> their families and blowing their own horn in television adverts.
> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too.
> '08 DL1000K8
I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year).
My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the
elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission to
a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits for free.
I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used the
public health system in over 20 years.
'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the earlier
From: theo on 4 Feb 2010 03:13
On Feb 4, 3:26 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Diogenes wrote:
> > So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and
> > hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to
> > redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh
> > so tendy? Where?
> I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense :)
Our preferential voting system was specifically designed so as to make
it almost impossible for any but the two major parties to be elected.
I'm for proportional voting.
From: Pietro on 4 Feb 2010 03:42
"Diogenes" <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> wrote in message
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:16:56 +1100, Moike <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:22:38 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>>>> The government would have done better to have found a way to target
>>>> dangerously speeding riders without driving away just about all the
>>>> of the motorbikes as well.
>>> And what proposals can you offer the gummint?
>>Well for a start, there was already in place a reasonable speed limit on
>>the road. Applying some manpower to enforce the existing laws would
>>presumably allow them to tackle the high-speed hoons.
> And this has worked where exactly?
And this has been tried where exactly?