Consider buying American!

willshak wrote:
> on 2/18/2008 1:55 PM Dean Dark said the following:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:44:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dean Dark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
>>>>
>>> ITYM 'grammatical' That is the adjective of grammar. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh bugger. There's just no end to it...
>>
>
> Am all this talk really impotent?
> All that matters is if'in you all can unerstand what's been spoked about.
> Otherwise, it all be pendantics.
>
Mr. Bush, we are honored that you've chosen to join our discussion.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:51:56 -0500, Mike Scheer > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:36:57 -0500, Dean Dark >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39:19 +0000, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
>>>>>> invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
>>>>>> the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
>>>>>> what is the correct grammar
>>>>> Maybe somebody who ends a question with a question mark.
>>>> That isn't a question it is a statement - as a statement it doesn't require an
>>>> answer.
>>> Point of order - at the very least it's a rhetorical question, and as
>>> such requires a question mark.
>>>
>>> Whose law is it that a grammar flame always contains a grammar error?
>>
>>
>> As I said Dan - we ENGLISH invented the language so we can do what we like with
>> it unlike the French who are very strict with spelling and pronunciation and the
>> Spanish who place the ? upside down but then that's not English - is it?
>
>That's right. If you declare standards to be null and void, then you
>can do anything you please. Would you like an input device that lets
>you post using crayons? After all, you've now donned ermine robes and
>declared ownership of the language, so if you **** on it, who's to
>challenge you?
>
>Incidentally, the "?" in your post requires quotation marks.

Being known as Sir Hugh of Bognor and being an egotistical megalomaniac I claim
ownership of my language.
Sir Hugh of Bognor

--
I used to be an Egotistical Meglomaniac - but now I'm just perfect!

Hugh Gundersen


Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

"dizzy" > wrote in message ...
>>> On the other hand, statements like Just Me's "Unless you're
>>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>>> advantages" are NOT correct.
>>
>>Would you care to elaborate on RWD advantages
>>over FWD in passenger cars driven on a regular road?
>
> No. Educate yourself. Google my posts, if you want.
> Buy yourself a clue, while you're at it.

I am not a mechanic.
Please list advantages in simple keywords to help me look up the details.

"Pszemol" > wrote
> "dizzy" > wrote
>>>> On the other hand, statements like Just Me's "Unless you're
>>>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>>>> advantages" are NOT correct.
>>>
>>>Would you care to elaborate on RWD advantages
>>>over FWD in passenger cars driven on a regular road?
>>
>> No. Educate yourself. Google my posts, if you want. Buy yourself a
>> clue, while you're at it.
>
> I am not a mechanic.

Most of us aren't mechanics; these advantages have little or nothing
to do with vehicle maintenance, but are inherent in the design of
automobiles. Arguably, anyone with a driver's license *should*
understand these tradeoffs when buying a car.

> Please list advantages in simple keywords to help me look up the details.

understeer, oversteer, packaging, FWD, RWD, mid-engine, AWD
Wikipedia has a good set of articles and links.

FloydR

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:38:55 -0800, "Floyd Rogers" >
wrote:

>"Pszemol" > wrote
>> "dizzy" > wrote
>>>>> On the other hand, statements like Just Me's "Unless you're
>>>>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>>>>> advantages" are NOT correct.
>>>>
>>>>Would you care to elaborate on RWD advantages
>>>>over FWD in passenger cars driven on a regular road?
>>>
>>> No. Educate yourself. Google my posts, if you want. Buy yourself a
>>> clue, while you're at it.
>>
>> I am not a mechanic.
>
>Most of us aren't mechanics; these advantages have little or nothing
>to do with vehicle maintenance, but are inherent in the design of
>automobiles. Arguably, anyone with a driver's license *should*
>understand these tradeoffs when buying a car.
>
>> Please list advantages in simple keywords to help me look up the details.
>
>understeer, oversteer, packaging, FWD, RWD, mid-engine, AWD
>Wikipedia has a good set of articles and links.
>
>FloydR
>

Reminds me of an old saying a very great friend said to me many moons ago...

"why how is this so" or for the simple minds here - "Why does this happen"

It is the kind of thing that BOYS used to have inbred with Little Mechanic kits
(Meccano here in the UK) and House building kits using miniature bricks and fake
cement.

Boys used to make pavement racers from old wooden boxes and pram wheels and then
bought old motorbikes to strip and rebuild (NOT to make it something special) it
to see if they could, to get it running and to learn to ride it.

Now I read that 30% will be gay by the year 2010 and many at the school where I
teach (electronics) many boys couldn't tell a spanner from a teacup but they all
know how to use a cell phone and swear constantly.

Not many MECHANICS about either as many are trained as PARTS FITTERS and have no
idea why they are doing the job on your car just that they are paid to do what
they are told to do and go home. Anything like a FastFit centre near you?

How "we" as humans and you as US folk got to the moon really beats me sometimes
and ever wondered why we didn't go back - the new breed couldn't get it
together!
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Boys used to make pavement racers from old wooden boxes and pram wheels and
>> then
>> bought old motorbikes to strip and rebuild (NOT to make it something special)
>> it
>> to see if they could, to get it running and to learn to ride it.
>>
>> Now I read that 30% will be gay by the year 2010
>
> ohmigod, do people really think like you?

I was quite speachless after reading this myself :-)
Amazing, isn't it?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:30:58 -0600, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message ...
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Boys used to make pavement racers from old wooden boxes and pram wheels and
>>> then
>>> bought old motorbikes to strip and rebuild (NOT to make it something special)
>>> it
>>> to see if they could, to get it running and to learn to ride it.
>>>
>>> Now I read that 30% will be gay by the year 2010
>>
>> ohmigod, do people really think like you?
>
>I was quite speachless after reading this myself :-)
>Amazing, isn't it?

Don't you guys know when you're being wound up?
--
Dan.

still just me wrote:

>RWD has a disadvantage in that the weight of the car is typically
>displaced about 60/40 towards the front of the car.

Your post was not bad, except for this bit of nonsense. It is rare
for a modern RWD car to be worse than 55/45. Most BMW's are 50/50 or
very close to it.

(Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
disadvantage for handling and performance.)

>So, in slippery
>conditions, RWD will lose traction sooner. Many folks with RWD put
>sand bags in the rear of the car to add weight in the Winter just to
>get around in the snow.

Your notions are obsolete, in regards to modern cars with stability
control systems. I will concede that RWD owners in the snow-belt
should get real Winter tires, while most FWD cars can get-by with
all-seasons.

dizzy wrote:

>(Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
>TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
>disadvantage for handling and performance.)

That should say 63/37 up there...

Thank you, Bob - your e-mail was very usefull.