porno türk porno rokettube
Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 474

Thread: A question of physics>>

  1. #81
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 3:50 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> A Dutchman with all the shitty (iow your) German genetics removed.

    >
    > Is that right? I doubt it.
    >
    > Not that I've ever been much into genealogy, but my German ancestry is 5
    > or 6 generations back on my father's side.



    My sympathies.

    Since then it's been strictly
    > Aussie.


    Your fat head even suggests that the kraut is definitely in you.


    I seem to recall you saying you weren't born here, and the Dutch
    > are as close to being German as you can get without actually being so.
    > They even speak the same ****ing language, or near enough to it :)
    >


    Nothing like the same language. Dutch is much more faithful to the
    original Germanic language then high German is.

    That's why you will often get Dutch speakers understanding a fair bit of
    German but not so the other way around.

    > I take it you're unaware that of all the occupied countries during WWII,
    > the Dutch had the largest "pro Nazi" sentiment?
    >


    It's not a question of awareness when it's simply not true, the Dutch
    had in fact a strong anti-Nazi sentiment. The Dutch also had a very
    active resistance movement during occupation.
    Even now anti-German sentiment relating back to the war is high.


    > That's because all Dutchmen are ignorant wannabee German ****s :)
    >
    >
    >



    I like the way you spout anti-Dutch sentiment which is 100% incorrect
    both historically and factually, proving my initial point in the process.

    Thanks for that.

  2. #82
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    Xeno Lith wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 8:13 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >> On 28/09/13 12:33 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's a ****ing shopping trolley hurtling down a ****ing mountain, what
    >>> do you think is going to happen?

    >>
    >> Hurtling down a mountain? I'm sorry, but where was this ever mentioned?
    >>
    >> Is your comprehension flaring up again, is it?
    >>
    >>> He did loose control, and the driver put himself in that position.

    >>
    >> Feel free to cite the part where I said I lost control. I mean, you
    >> don't want to be seen to be a liar, right?
    >>
    >>

    > How about this bit?
    > >
    > > In the case in question, a car in front (which was a mid 90's Camry
    > > as I recall) was being driven on the brake down one of the grades
    > > and I had to brake to avoid hitting it and adjust to it's speed but
    > > the little Hyundai's chocolate chip biscuit brake pads went off *way*
    > > before the Camry's seemed to and I ended up having to drive around it
    > > and then stopping with the trans and hand brake or I would have run
    > > right up it's clacker.
    > >

    > Now, let me see, you "had to drive around it". What, pray tell, would
    > you have done had there been another car coming the other way? Head on
    > collision or dive off into the scrub? If you couldn't stop BEHIND the
    > Camry, you quite obviously weren't in control. The reality was, you got
    > lucky, your prayers worked!
    > Don't use the line that it was an unfamiliar car as that has little
    > credibility. It should have been all the more reason to take care.
    >


    Since he can't drive to conditions he shouldn't be on the road.



  3. #83
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:05:26 +1000, Noddy <me@wardengineering.com.au>
    wrote:

    >On 28/09/13 3:40 PM, atec77 wrote:
    >
    >> Acting like his momma caught his pre-pubescent self doing something very
    >> bad


    Sounds more like you're projecting another one of your fantasies Baz
    :)

    >Thanks Barry. Now, back to eating the cheese from under your foreskin.


    LOL...

  4. #84
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    D Walford wrote:
    > On 28/09/2013 12:33 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >> D Walford wrote:
    >>> On 28/09/2013 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>> D Walford wrote:
    >>>>> On 28/09/2013 2:44 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>>> Noddy wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 27/09/13 8:57 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> He's got a valid point on this occasion however.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Considering that he's a professional bullshit artist, you are
    >>>>>>> completely
    >>>>>>> wrong. He never has a valid point ever.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You simply can't ****ing drive.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> How the **** would you know dickhead?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> By what you posted yourself you twat.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you drive 10 different cars down the same hill at the same speed in
    >>>>> the same way and one out of the 10 experiences fade then its the fault
    >>>>> of the car not the driver,
    >>>>
    >>>> Errr, no.
    >>>
    >>> Errr yes, if I was driving an old Valiant I would expect serious brake
    >>> fade but driving a relatively modern car like a Getz I wouldn't expect
    >>> it especially if every other car I had driven in the same conditions
    >>> didn't experience fade.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I would only blame the driver if the car
    >>>>> actually crashed when they previously knew that the car they were
    >>>>> driving was prone to fade.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> If you don't know how a car is going to behave you drive accordingly,
    >>>> and you certainly select a low gear when descending no matter what you
    >>>> are driving anyway.
    >>>
    >>> Its a very reasonable expectation that a modern car won't suffer from
    >>> excessive brake fade when driven normally.
    >>>>

    >>
    >> It's a ****ing shopping trolley hurtling down a ****ing mountain, what
    >> do you think is going to happen?

    >
    > Hurtling?
    > You making shit up again, from what I read he was just driving normally.
    >>
    >>>> Any driver should drive to conditions (which includes the car, the
    >>>> environment and experience with the car) and not by any assumption.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> True but if fade is only experienced in one out of 10 cars in the same
    >>> circumstances then it is mostly the fault of the car, IMO it only
    >>> becomes the fault of the driver if they allow it to get so bad that they
    >>> loose control.
    >>>

    >>
    >> He did loose control, and the driver put himself in that position.

    >
    > He did say he got a bit close to the car in front but no mention of a
    > collision so he may have come close to loosing control but not quite.



    He had to go around another car into the oncoming lane to avoid a
    collision FFS.

    What if a car had been coming in the other direction?

    >>
    >>>> But you know this and are just defending the FIGJAM who can't drive in
    >>>> your usual role.
    >>>
    >>> What's wrong, your clogs too tight again.

    >>
    >> Schmacko time again?

    >
    > Very tight clogs are spoiling the blood flow to your brain so badly that
    > you are behaving like a small child, FFS grow up.


    Yeah, a real mature comment that one.
    How about you use your brain and think about what you are defending for
    a change?

  5. #85
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 02:20:23 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:


    >Since he can't drive to conditions he shouldn't be on the road.


    ****ing hell, I thought I was up early.

  6. #86
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    John_H wrote:
    > Buzz^| wrote:
    >>
    >> The RMX250 I have,
    >> being a 2 stroke needs special care when descending the mountains around
    >> here.

    >
    > Lucky you don't have 2-stroke car! :)
    >
    > Premix 2-strokes (which doesn't include yours) starve for lubrication
    > under prolonged engine braking.
    >
    > Saab (which were a recent topic of discussion) had automatic free
    > wheeling on their transmissions to get around the problem, as did some
    > other 2-stroke cars.... Making them less than the ideal choice for
    > mountainous terrains.


    Engine-braking is such an important part of driving, those 2 strokes
    should be modified as a statutory obligation...inject oil were it's
    needed during the periods spoken about..

    Jason



  7. #87
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/2013 4:25 AM, Clocky wrote:
    > D Walford wrote:
    >> On 28/09/2013 12:33 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>> D Walford wrote:
    >>>> On 28/09/2013 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>> D Walford wrote:
    >>>>>> On 28/09/2013 2:44 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On 27/09/13 8:57 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> He's got a valid point on this occasion however.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Considering that he's a professional bullshit artist, you are
    >>>>>>>> completely
    >>>>>>>> wrong. He never has a valid point ever.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> You simply can't ****ing drive.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> How the **** would you know dickhead?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> By what you posted yourself you twat.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you drive 10 different cars down the same hill at the same
    >>>>>> speed in
    >>>>>> the same way and one out of the 10 experiences fade then its the
    >>>>>> fault
    >>>>>> of the car not the driver,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Errr, no.
    >>>>
    >>>> Errr yes, if I was driving an old Valiant I would expect serious brake
    >>>> fade but driving a relatively modern car like a Getz I wouldn't expect
    >>>> it especially if every other car I had driven in the same conditions
    >>>> didn't experience fade.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I would only blame the driver if the car
    >>>>>> actually crashed when they previously knew that the car they were
    >>>>>> driving was prone to fade.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you don't know how a car is going to behave you drive accordingly,
    >>>>> and you certainly select a low gear when descending no matter what you
    >>>>> are driving anyway.
    >>>>
    >>>> Its a very reasonable expectation that a modern car won't suffer from
    >>>> excessive brake fade when driven normally.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's a ****ing shopping trolley hurtling down a ****ing mountain, what
    >>> do you think is going to happen?

    >>
    >> Hurtling?
    >> You making shit up again, from what I read he was just driving normally.
    >>>
    >>>>> Any driver should drive to conditions (which includes the car, the
    >>>>> environment and experience with the car) and not by any assumption.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> True but if fade is only experienced in one out of 10 cars in the same
    >>>> circumstances then it is mostly the fault of the car, IMO it only
    >>>> becomes the fault of the driver if they allow it to get so bad that
    >>>> they
    >>>> loose control.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> He did loose control, and the driver put himself in that position.

    >>
    >> He did say he got a bit close to the car in front but no mention of a
    >> collision so he may have come close to loosing control but not quite.

    >
    >
    > He had to go around another car into the oncoming lane to avoid a
    > collision FFS.


    Making up shit again, he didn't say anything about going into the
    oncoming lane, I have driven that road many times so I know that much of
    it is multi lane so in most places no need to go into the oncoming lane.
    >
    > What if a car had been coming in the other direction?
    >
    >>>
    >>>>> But you know this and are just defending the FIGJAM who can't drive in
    >>>>> your usual role.
    >>>>
    >>>> What's wrong, your clogs too tight again.
    >>>
    >>> Schmacko time again?

    >>
    >> Very tight clogs are spoiling the blood flow to your brain so badly that
    >> you are behaving like a small child, FFS grow up.

    >
    > Yeah, a real mature comment that one.


    Significantly more mature than your 4yr old rantings.

    > How about you use your brain and think about what you are defending for
    > a change?



    Just pointing out how childish you are, FFS grow up.



    Daryl

  8. #88
    Ext User(Xeno Lith) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 8:03 AM, Jason James wrote:
    > John_H wrote:
    >> Buzz^| wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The RMX250 I have,
    >>> being a 2 stroke needs special care when descending the mountains around
    >>> here.

    >>
    >> Lucky you don't have 2-stroke car! :)
    >>
    >> Premix 2-strokes (which doesn't include yours) starve for lubrication
    >> under prolonged engine braking.
    >>
    >> Saab (which were a recent topic of discussion) had automatic free
    >> wheeling on their transmissions to get around the problem, as did some
    >> other 2-stroke cars.... Making them less than the ideal choice for
    >> mountainous terrains.

    >
    > Engine-braking is such an important part of driving, those 2 strokes
    > should be modified as a statutory obligation...inject oil were it's
    > needed during the periods spoken about..
    >
    > Jason
    >
    >

    Haven't two strokes been modified out of existence through emissions
    regulations?

    --

    Xeno

  9. #89
    Ext User(John_H) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    Jason James wrote:
    >John_H wrote:
    >>
    >> Premix 2-strokes (which doesn't include yours) starve for lubrication
    >> under prolonged engine braking.
    >>
    >> Saab (which were a recent topic of discussion) had automatic free
    >> wheeling on their transmissions to get around the problem, as did some
    >> other 2-stroke cars.... Making them less than the ideal choice for
    >> mountainous terrains.

    >
    >Engine-braking is such an important part of driving, those 2 strokes
    >should be modified as a statutory obligation...inject oil were it's
    >needed during the periods spoken about..


    A lot of British makes once had selective free wheeling as standard
    (as a fuel economy measure). Rover were among the last (1960's) IIRC.

    Many considered it highly dangerous, and it may even have been banned
    in some countries. My father, who ran a garage, used to disable the
    free wheeling on any cars so equipped that came in for service (and
    presumably advised the owners accordingly).

    --
    John H

  10. #90
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    Xeno Lith wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 8:03 AM, Jason James wrote:
    >> John_H wrote:
    >>> Buzz^| wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The RMX250 I have,
    >>>> being a 2 stroke needs special care when descending the mountains
    >>>> around
    >>>> here.
    >>>
    >>> Lucky you don't have 2-stroke car! :)
    >>>
    >>> Premix 2-strokes (which doesn't include yours) starve for lubrication
    >>> under prolonged engine braking.
    >>>
    >>> Saab (which were a recent topic of discussion) had automatic free
    >>> wheeling on their transmissions to get around the problem, as did some
    >>> other 2-stroke cars.... Making them less than the ideal choice for
    >>> mountainous terrains.

    >>
    >> Engine-braking is such an important part of driving, those 2 strokes
    >> should be modified as a statutory obligation...inject oil were it's
    >> needed during the periods spoken about..
    >>
    >> Jason
    >>
    >>

    > Haven't two strokes been modified out of existence through emissions
    > regulations?


    Because of their inherant inefficiancy, their only claim to fame is
    their output vs engine size...why **** about with them ? I concede
    there is a need in some motor-cycles I suppose..

    Jason




  11. #91
    Ext User(Jason James) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    John_H wrote:
    > Jason James wrote:
    >> John_H wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Premix 2-strokes (which doesn't include yours) starve for lubrication
    >>> under prolonged engine braking.
    >>>
    >>> Saab (which were a recent topic of discussion) had automatic free
    >>> wheeling on their transmissions to get around the problem, as did some
    >>> other 2-stroke cars.... Making them less than the ideal choice for
    >>> mountainous terrains.

    >>
    >> Engine-braking is such an important part of driving, those 2 strokes
    >> should be modified as a statutory obligation...inject oil were it's
    >> needed during the periods spoken about..

    >
    > A lot of British makes once had selective free wheeling as standard
    > (as a fuel economy measure). Rover were among the last (1960's) IIRC.
    >
    > Many considered it highly dangerous, and it may even have been banned
    > in some countries. My father, who ran a garage, used to disable the
    > free wheeling on any cars so equipped that came in for service (and
    > presumably advised the owners accordingly).


    A man who stood up to be counted,..good on him :-)
    You dont see or hear about such altruistic folks these days...

    Jason


  12. #92
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 4:16 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Nothing like the same language. Dutch is much more faithful to the
    > original Germanic language then high German is.


    It's in the same suburb :)

    > That's why you will often get Dutch speakers understanding a fair bit of
    > German but not so the other way around.


    Why do the Dutch have reputations for being arrogant ****s?

    > It's not a question of awareness when it's simply not true, the Dutch
    > had in fact a strong anti-Nazi sentiment. The Dutch also had a very
    > active resistance movement during occupation.
    > Even now anti-German sentiment relating back to the war is high.


    Just about every occupied country was similar. But that doesn't mean
    they didn't have a pro German movement either.

    From the Wiki article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers":

    Netherlands

    SS Recruiting Poster for the Netherlands, urging Dutch people to "join
    the fight against Bolshevism"
    Thousands of Dutch volunteers joined the 11th SS Volunteer
    Panzergrenadier Division Nordland (created in February 1943).
    The division participated in fighting against the Soviet army and was
    crushed in the Battle of Berlin in April–May 1945.
    This was also the case for the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking.
    It was involved in several major battles on the Eastern Front.
    SS-Freiwilligen Legion Niederlande, manned by Dutch volunteers and
    German officers, battled the Soviet army from 1941.
    In December 1943, it gained brigade status after fighting on the front
    around Leningrad. It was at Leningrad that the first
    European volunteer, a Dutchman, earned the Knight's Cross of the Iron
    Cross: Gerardus Mooyman. In December 1944, it was
    transformed into the 23rd SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division
    Nederland and fought in Courland and Pomerania.[6]
    It found its end scattered across Germany.
    SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "de Ruyter" fought at the Oder
    and surrendered on 3 May 1945 to the Americans. 48.
    SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "General Seyffardt" however
    was split up into two groups. The first of these fought with Kampfgruppe
    Vieweger and went under in the fighting near Halbe.
    The few remaining survivors were captured by the Soviets. The other half
    of "General Seyffart" fought with Korpsgruppe Tettau
    and surrendered to the western Allies. During the war famous actor and
    singer Johannes Heesters made his career in Nazi-Germany,
    befriending high-ranking Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels and living in
    houses stolen from wealthy Jews.

    Clearly there was *plenty* of Pro Nazi activity. Despite your propaganda
    to the contrary.

    > I like the way you spout anti-Dutch sentiment which is 100% incorrect
    > both historically and factually, proving my initial point in the process.


    You had a point? That'd be a first.

    > Thanks for that.


    You're welcome, but in your usual ridiculous mouth frothing you've
    totally missed the point. You can call me a"German" if you like, but
    *you* were born in a country that is of Germanic stock making you closer
    to being a ****ing German than I could ever hope to be, you ****ing idiot :)


    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  13. #93
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 4:20 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Since he can't drive to conditions he shouldn't be on the road.


    I find it quite remarkable that you two dick pullers can work out an
    entire scenario based on a couple of sentences. You are both incredibly
    wasted talents.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  14. #94
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 4:41 AM, Jeßus wrote:

    > ****ing hell, I thought I was up early.


    It must be a total **** for him to not have a life :)



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  15. #95
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 4:25 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > He had to go around another car into the oncoming lane to avoid a
    > collision FFS.
    >
    > What if a car had been coming in the other direction?


    Jesus, talk about taking liberties. Where did I give a detailed
    explanation of exactly what I did?

    Do you see how much of a ****ing idiot it makes you look when you fill
    details in to suit yourself?

    > Yeah, a real mature comment that one.


    ROTFL :)

    ****. From the ****ing moron who's become the *master* of irrelevant
    bullshit just for the sake of commenting.

    Oh my God the Irony.....

    > How about you use your brain and think about what you are defending for
    > a change?


    How about you grow a ****ing dick and stop being such a pretentious know
    it all **** who thinks he has everyone pegged?

    The real irony here is that you don't seem to know your arse from your
    elbow, and the more you try to prove otherwise the larger the chasm becomes.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  16. #96
    Ext User(jonz) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 9/28/2013 9:58 PM, Xeno Lith wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 8:13 PM, Noddy wrote:
    >> On 28/09/13 12:33 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's a ****ing shopping trolley hurtling down a ****ing mountain, what
    >>> do you think is going to happen?

    >>
    >> Hurtling down a mountain? I'm sorry, but where was this ever mentioned?
    >>
    >> Is your comprehension flaring up again, is it?
    >>
    >>> He did loose control, and the driver put himself in that position.

    >>
    >> Feel free to cite the part where I said I lost control. I mean, you
    >> don't want to be seen to be a liar, right?
    >>
    >>

    > How about this bit?
    > >
    > > In the case in question, a car in front (which was a mid 90's Camry
    > > as I recall) was being driven on the brake down one of the grades
    > > and I had to brake to avoid hitting it and adjust to it's speed but
    > > the little Hyundai's chocolate chip biscuit brake pads went off *way*
    > > before the Camry's seemed to and I ended up having to drive around it
    > > and then stopping with the trans and hand brake or I would have run
    > > right up it's clacker.
    > >

    > Now, let me see, you "had to drive around it". What, pray tell, would
    > you have done had there been another car coming the other way? Head on
    > collision or dive off into the scrub? If you couldn't stop BEHIND the
    > Camry, you quite obviously weren't in control. The reality was, you got
    > lucky, your prayers worked!
    > Don't use the line that it was an unfamiliar car as that has little
    > credibility. It should have been all the more reason to take care.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In his case _take the bus_........
    >



    --
    “Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

  17. #97
    Ext User(jonz) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 9/29/2013 12:44 AM, Noddy wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 8:36 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >
    >> Hurtling?
    >> You making shit up again, from what I read he was just driving normally.

    >
    > I was.
    >
    > The thing was fine all the way down until I came up on a slow moving car
    > and had to use the brakes for a bit longer than I had previously been
    > and that's when they went away quickly. The point, which was lost on
    > him, was in just how quickly the soft as shit factory pads went off.
    >
    >> He did say he got a bit close to the car in front but no mention of a
    >> collision so he may have come close to loosing control but not quite.

    >
    > Never even come close to losing control. I had to go around the old bird
    > in her Camry or I would have hit it, but that was about the extent of
    > the excitement.
    >
    > It all sounds very uninteresting, and it was. Trouble is that it doesn't
    > stop dickheads from painting outrageous pictures and that's stupid
    > really as I've had *far* worse incidents than that :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    THAT i believe, (yeah, amazing) sounds like U are a D grade steering
    wheel attendant. Danger mouse personified.
    >



    --
    “Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

  18. #98
    Ext User(Blue Heeler) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    Noddy wrote:

    > On 29/09/13 4:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    > > Since he can't drive to conditions he shouldn't be on the road.

    >
    > I find it quite remarkable that you two dick pullers can work out an
    > entire scenario based on a couple of sentences. You are both
    > incredibly wasted talents.


    They should write scripts for Neighbours, Big Brother or some such
    similar show. Shows that specialise in fantasy

  19. #99
    Ext User(lindsay) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/2013 12:58 PM, Xeno Lith wrote:

    > The Getz comment you made was ill advised and you've suddenly realised
    > it make YOU look like a goose, hence the rapid backpedalling! ;-)


    Hey Alligator, the only one who looks like a goose 'round here is you.
    Why? Because you know Noddy's killfiled you, yet you're STILL replying!

    :-D


  20. #100
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: A question of physics>>

    On 29/09/13 1:22 PM, lindsay wrote:

    > Hey Alligator, the only one who looks like a goose 'round here is you.
    > Why? Because you know Noddy's killfiled you, yet you're STILL replying!
    >
    > :-D


    He lives for it. For him the chance of commenting without fear of
    reprisal is just too great to pass up.

    Jonz likes to do it too. All great idiots live for it.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •