porno türk porno rokettube
Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 511

Thread: Shortarse is full of shit!

  1. #61
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 5:33 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Noddy!

    >
    > There's a fine example of the childish avoidance we've come to expect
    > from you :)
    >
    >
    >


    You mean like avoidance of backing up the claim that you had a PC in
    September 1981?



  2. #62
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 7:03 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Such admiration for our version of the Nazi party... sad really.

    >
    > You really *are* delusional.
    >


    Really? Controlling the media to mislead the people is where it all
    starts, and that is what is happening right now.



  3. #63
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 28/09/13 6:51 PM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Afraid not son.

    >
    > Wow. What a compelling argument.
    >
    >> He's every bit the tyrant I always suspected he was.

    >
    > Translation: "I'm a delusional ****wit. I think my Postie is a CIA
    > operative as well".
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Nope, I'm a realist unlike you and your JFK conspiracy theories.

  4. #64
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/13 11:17 AM, Clocky wrote:

    > Really? Controlling the media to mislead the people is where it all
    > starts, and that is what is happening right now.


    I take it you're u8naware that it was the *Labor* party that actually
    wanted to censor the media, right?






    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  5. #65
    Ext User(Blue Heeler) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:

    > On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >
    > > P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    > > with?

    >
    > It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    > was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference
    > it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering,
    > and I certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if
    > it didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >
    > On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    > been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going
    > for it :)


    Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.

  6. #66
    Ext User(Xeno Lith) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/13 11:26 AM, Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 11:15 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> You mean like avoidance of backing up the claim that you had a PC in
    >> September 1981?

    >
    > Kinda, but not really. I said that I had it and I maintain that to this
    > day despite your ridiculous protests.
    >
    > You make no claim about *anything*.
    >
    >
    >

    What you say and reality are, more often than not, diametrically opposed!

    --

    Xeno

  7. #67
    Ext User(Xeno Lith) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/13 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    > Noddy wrote:
    >
    >> On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >>
    >>> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    >>> with?

    >>
    >> It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    >> was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference
    >> it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering,
    >> and I certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if
    >> it didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    >> been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going
    >> for it :)

    >
    > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    > didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    > amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    >

    Pity about the rust!

    --

    Xeno

  8. #68
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/13 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:

    > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    > didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    > amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.


    It was.

    I never cared for Valiant styling at all, nor 70's Falcons in the day
    although I must admit that the XA is having some retrospective appeal at
    the moment. Holdens were a different story though as I always found them
    to be a great looking car. Particularly the 2 door HQ which was
    fantastic in it's day and still looks great for mine.

    The P-76, for mine, was just hideous from any angle, and particularly
    the rear which I found revolting.



    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  9. #69
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/2013 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    > Noddy wrote:
    >
    >> On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >>
    >>> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    >>> with?

    >>
    >> It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    >> was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference
    >> it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering,
    >> and I certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if
    >> it didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    >> been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going
    >> for it :)

    >
    > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    > didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    > amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    >

    Which part of it was under developed?
    Most of the basic mechanicals carried over from XC, there were a few
    issues like fuel gauge senders and AC switches but overall it was a huge
    improvement over XC resulting in something like a 40% drop in warranty
    cost to Ford.

    --
    Daryl

  10. #70
    Ext User(Blue Heeler) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Xeno Lith wrote:

    > > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed
    > > and didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the
    > > pitiful amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    > >

    > Pity about the rust!


    You are not wrong. I had an XB ute rust out in under 3 years because
    Ford forgot to remove the temporary bungs they put in the damm things
    when spraying underbody sealer/noise reducer.

    Totally refused to come to the party even thugh the blasted bungs were
    still there to be seen.


    The result would be very different now

  11. #71
    Ext User(Blue Heeler) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    D Walford wrote:

    > On 29/09/2013 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    > > Noddy wrote:
    > >
    > > > On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    > > > > with?
    > > >
    > > > It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or
    > > > not it was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real
    > > > difference it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack &
    > > > pinion steering, and I certainly don't think that would have been
    > > > enough to save it if it didn't suffer from it's appalling build
    > > > quality issues.
    > > >
    > > > On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that
    > > > had been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that
    > > > going for it :)

    > >
    > > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed
    > > and didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the
    > > pitiful amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    > >

    > Which part of it was under developed?
    > Most of the basic mechanicals carried over from XC, there were a few
    > issues like fuel gauge senders and AC switches but overall it was a
    > huge improvement over XC resulting in something like a 40% drop in
    > warranty cost to Ford.


    The XC was nothing to be proud of - that was the point.

  12. #72
    Ext User(jonz) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 9/29/2013 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    > Noddy wrote:
    >
    >> On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >>
    >>> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    >>> with?

    >>
    >> It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    >> was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference
    >> it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering,
    >> and I certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if
    >> it didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    >> been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going
    >> for it :)

    >
    > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    > didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    > amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    IT was. As I said in here a while back:


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yes, it was a good looking car and deserved better. I was working for
    NZMC in Invercargill when they were released, and was doing pre delivery
    on them......to get doors, controls etc. to work as designed was a
    bloody nightmare.....about 60% of the v8`s we sold sucked the valley
    cover gasket into the engine. also the protective coating on the body
    was just about impossible to remove. the local traffic dept. (traffic
    police) got two of them, and after the bugs were ironed out, they got a
    good run out of them. there are a few of then around here (Moruya) one
    in particular still looks and runs as new...
    >
    >



    --
    “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”

  13. #73
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/2013 4:27 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    > D Walford wrote:
    >
    >> On 29/09/2013 12:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:
    >>> Noddy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    >>>>> with?
    >>>>
    >>>> It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or
    >>>> not it was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real
    >>>> difference it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack &
    >>>> pinion steering, and I certainly don't think that would have been
    >>>> enough to save it if it didn't suffer from it's appalling build
    >>>> quality issues.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that
    >>>> had been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that
    >>>> going for it :)
    >>>
    >>> Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    >>> bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed
    >>> and didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the
    >>> pitiful amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    >>>

    >> Which part of it was under developed?
    >> Most of the basic mechanicals carried over from XC, there were a few
    >> issues like fuel gauge senders and AC switches but overall it was a
    >> huge improvement over XC resulting in something like a 40% drop in
    >> warranty cost to Ford.

    >
    > The XC was nothing to be proud of - that was the point.
    >

    No doubt about that but the XC basic mechanical package was ok, it was
    mostly let down by bodywork and interior quality issues made worse by
    being an old design, XD was a major improvement as far as the body and
    interior quality, they did rust when they got a lot older but they were
    no where near as bad as previous models.
    XC was also built in the early days of emission regulation which didn't
    help performance or economy

    --
    Daryl

  14. #74
    Ext User(Noddy) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/13 9:41 PM, D Walford wrote:

    > No doubt about that but the XC basic mechanical package was ok, it was
    > mostly let down by bodywork and interior quality issues made worse by
    > being an old design, XD was a major improvement as far as the body and
    > interior quality, they did rust when they got a lot older but they were
    > no where near as bad as previous models.


    They weren't. In fact it took XD's quite a few years to show any signs
    of rust usually, and they were way better in this regard than the
    previous models. The mechanical packages were a carry over in the first
    of the XD's, and I don't think anything changed at all until the Alloy
    head six came along.

    > XC was also built in the early days of emission regulation which didn't
    > help performance or economy


    Tell me about it. I had an 351 XC GXL that made about as much power as a
    Mazda 323 while having the thirst of a Tiger Tank :)





    --
    --
    Regards,
    Noddy.

  15. #75
    Ext User(D Walford) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    On 29/09/2013 10:10 PM, Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 9:41 PM, D Walford wrote:
    >
    >> No doubt about that but the XC basic mechanical package was ok, it was
    >> mostly let down by bodywork and interior quality issues made worse by
    >> being an old design, XD was a major improvement as far as the body and
    >> interior quality, they did rust when they got a lot older but they were
    >> no where near as bad as previous models.

    >
    > They weren't. In fact it took XD's quite a few years to show any signs
    > of rust usually, and they were way better in this regard than the
    > previous models. The mechanical packages were a carry over in the first
    > of the XD's, and I don't think anything changed at all until the Alloy
    > head six came along.
    >
    >> XC was also built in the early days of emission regulation which didn't
    >> help performance or economy

    >
    > Tell me about it. I had an 351 XC GXL that made about as much power as a
    > Mazda 323 while having the thirst of a Tiger Tank :)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    The V8's didn't get much better in the XD, I remember needing two tanks
    of fuel to get from Orbost to Melbourne in a 5.8lt Fairlane, average
    speed was in excessive of 140kph with frequent overtaking at WOT, the
    fuel consumption was horrendous but Ford was paying so I didn't care:-)

    --
    Daryl

  16. #76
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 11:15 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> You mean like avoidance of backing up the claim that you had a PC in
    >> September 1981?

    >
    > Kinda, but not really.


    100% avoidance of backing up your claim.

    I said that I had it and I maintain that to this
    > day despite your ridiculous protests.
    >


    Nothing rediculous about hitting you with historical evidence that you
    can't refute.

    > You make no claim about *anything*.
    >


    Obvious lie.


  17. #77
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Xeno Lith wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 11:26 AM, Noddy wrote:
    >> On 29/09/13 11:15 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >>
    >>> You mean like avoidance of backing up the claim that you had a PC in
    >>> September 1981?

    >>
    >> Kinda, but not really. I said that I had it and I maintain that to this
    >> day despite your ridiculous protests.
    >>
    >> You make no claim about *anything*.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > What you say and reality are, more often than not, diametrically opposed!
    >


    Indeed.



  18. #78
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Blue Heeler wrote:
    > Noddy wrote:
    >
    >> On 29/09/13 4:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
    >>
    >>> P76: Good design executed badly or just a pile of shit to begin
    >>> with?

    >>
    >> It certainly suffered from appalling execution, but whether or not it
    >> was a good design is a matter of conjecture. The only real difference
    >> it had from it's then "Big Three" rivals was rack & pinion steering,
    >> and I certainly don't think that would have been enough to save it if
    >> it didn't suffer from it's appalling build quality issues.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, it was as ugly as a hat full or arseholes that had
    >> been set on fire and put out with an ice pick, so it had that going
    >> for it :)

    >
    > Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    > bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed and
    > didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the pitiful
    > amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    >


    Styled after a brick and handling like a brick sitting on a sponge ;-)


    Seemed particularly prone to rust too. Still, as far as locally produced
    shite went, it was a fairly decent car.

  19. #79
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Blue Heeler wrote:
    > Xeno Lith wrote:
    >
    >>> Better looking than the then Valiants or Kingswoods IMLTHO. I didn't
    >>> bother mentioning ford cause their style boat had long since sailed
    >>> and didn't come back until the XD, which for its time and the
    >>> pitiful amount of development put into it, was a pretty good car.
    >>>

    >> Pity about the rust!

    >
    > You are not wrong. I had an XB ute rust out in under 3 years because
    > Ford forgot to remove the temporary bungs they put in the damm things
    > when spraying underbody sealer/noise reducer.
    >
    > Totally refused to come to the party even thugh the blasted bungs were
    > still there to be seen.
    >
    >
    > The result would be very different now
    >


    Certainly would be.

  20. #80
    Ext User(Clocky) Guest

    Re: Shortarse is full of shit!

    Noddy wrote:
    > On 29/09/13 11:13 AM, Clocky wrote:
    >
    >> Nope, I'm a realist unlike you and your JFK conspiracy theories.

    >
    > Bwahahahahahaha :)
    >
    > This from the bloke who claims that his "predictions"


    I made no such claim of "predictions".

    Is it really necessary to butt in to every conversation and misquote and
    attribute claims to me that I never made in almost every reply?

    We get that you're a hypocrite and terminally dishonest, there is really
    no need to keep proving it.






Posting Permissions

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