Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #82965 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-03-14 03:38 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-04-21 00:12 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 03:38 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-03-14 09:52 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 06:07 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-03-14 10:15 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 06:25 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:18 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-14 17:19 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:53 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-03-14 18:48 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-14 22:45 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 21:47 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:16 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:12 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:51 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-14 13:03 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 21:49 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-03-14 22:03 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-15 02:09 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-14 19:23 -0700
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-15 05:03 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-15 04:11 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-15 09:00 -0700
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-03-15 10:05 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-15 20:51 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-15 21:25 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-03-16 00:30 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-16 02:36 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-03-16 06:00 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-16 06:19 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-03-16 09:52 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-16 05:15 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-16 20:05 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-16 00:51 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-16 05:59 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-16 09:50 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-16 14:11 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-17 01:47 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-17 18:27 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-18 03:36 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-16 22:00 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-17 03:05 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-17 12:43 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-16 20:04 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-16 22:10 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-17 09:14 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-16 23:01 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-17 00:02 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-17 00:47 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-17 06:10 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-17 09:19 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-17 19:35 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-17 03:37 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-17 12:48 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-18 00:25 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-18 11:32 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-17 19:35 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-17 00:49 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-17 00:41 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-22 12:04 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-22 08:49 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-22 16:40 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-17 03:09 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-03-15 02:52 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-04-14 14:51 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-04-14 17:41 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-14 19:23 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-15 11:00 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-15 20:22 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-16 00:28 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-04-17 08:03 +1000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-17 11:44 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-17 13:02 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-04-18 08:23 +1000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-17 21:01 -0700
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-17 20:39 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-17 21:06 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-17 18:10 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-18 13:25 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-18 20:33 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-19 16:48 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-19 21:55 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-19 23:02 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-20 14:57 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-20 20:54 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-21 00:29 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-20 21:08 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-21 02:51 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 09:54 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-21 12:27 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-21 00:27 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-20 21:09 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 09:54 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-21 12:32 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 13:11 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-21 19:12 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-22 07:03 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-22 15:59 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-22 22:40 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-22 10:06 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-22 15:37 +0000
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 17:39 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 18:24 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-21 21:33 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-22 10:06 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-22 17:31 +0100
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-17 18:03 -0400
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-16 11:01 +0200
Re: Small Practical Usenet-Related Question - Keep Thunderbird From Dropping Out 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-04-21 00:12 +0200
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1tkotFdsucU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83192 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 01:47:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: > But if I can find a '57 Chevy that's not all > bond-o and thick paint I'll buy it. We had a '57 Chevy and it already had some Bondo around the headlights when we traded it in on a '62 Rambler Classic. That left me with a distaste for the entire Romney family. My father liked it because it had 15" wheels rather than the 14" other manufacturers were going to. And it did have the handy bed option which didn't impress the parents of teenage girls. > My fave were the late 60s Fords and Chevys. > The 200ci Ford straight-6 was reliable and super easy to service. I had a '62 Falcon Futura with the straight-6. I don't name things but I referred to it as the Thunderchicken since it looked like a scale model T- Bird, black vinyl roof and all. It must have had some Jeep DNA since it would go anywhere. My next Ford was a '73 Mustang that was baffled by an inch of snow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 03:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <F_ednTQhgeq8yyf0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83247 |
On 3/17/26 14:27, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 01:47:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> But if I can find a '57 Chevy that's not all >> bond-o and thick paint I'll buy it. > > We had a '57 Chevy and it already had some Bondo around the headlights > when we traded it in on a '62 Rambler Classic. That left me with a > distaste for the entire Romney family. My father liked it because it had > 15" wheels rather than the 14" other manufacturers were going to. And it > did have the handy bed option which didn't impress the parents of teenage > girls. US, indeed all, older autos had CRAP rust-proofing. There was (still is ?) a US company called 'Ziebart' that would blast all the little crevices with some agent that would allegedly inhibit rust. Some 80s vehicles used (lightly) galvanized steel ... it'd last longer, but not forever. If you want 'forever', buy a DeLorean. Still see a few around town, even know where to go for service. Tesla Truck - YUK ! Big and Ugly and Weird and - gak ! - ELECTRIC !!! Maybe with a big diesel conversion :-) Northern climes where they use salt to de-ice the roads just DESTROYED older cars. USA ... old cars from 'desert-like' states ARE often still pretty good. The paint may be gone but the steel persists. Still hoping for a sort of old 60s Land Rover clone with ROBUST hard-anodized body panels and good steel 'C' or Box underframe. Alas we're more likely to see the Moon People come down and shower us with wonderful gifts ...... Hmmm ... a few years back I saw a little article in a local paper about a designated 'historical' house - belonged to a wealthy founder. One pic was of a mid-30s Packard found in the garage. Beautiful !!! Love that swoopy+running-board look from that era ! >> My fave were the late 60s Fords and Chevys. >> The 200ci Ford straight-6 was reliable and super easy to service. > > I had a '62 Falcon Futura with the straight-6. I don't name things but I > referred to it as the Thunderchicken since it looked like a scale model T- > Bird, black vinyl roof and all. It must have had some Jeep DNA since it > would go anywhere. My next Ford was a '73 Mustang that was baffled by an > inch of snow. I had a later Falcon - GREAT car. You could also pretty much dive head-first into the engine compartment and reach anything. Simple, solid. I think an Oz company made a sort of clone ... but with a somewhat heavier suspension meant for the nasty local roads. Only went out of biz a few years ago. Note that the early 'Mustangs' were nothing but a sexier body bolted on a Falcon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2l7m8mxvgt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83105 |
On 2026-03-16 14:50, c186282 wrote: > On 3/16/26 09:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >>> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >>> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. >> >> I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily >> drive... > > Um ... I never had much trouble with carbs. Once > in a great while you might have to replace the > bowl gasket, but otherwise. My R5 carburettor needed cleaning every oil change (every 10000Km). It had a vent hole in its small gasoline reservoir, and dust entered that way (my guess). If I did not clean it, the iddle carburetor jet became blocked. > > But EFI is perfectly good now too - UNLESS the > 'brain' has a fart, then you're screwed. > > In any case I have 'survival' reasons to hang on > to the landline - so I'm not going to give them > ANY excuse. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 03:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5PGcnQ-5n5fNYCX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83141 |
On 3/16/26 17:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-03-16 14:50, c186282 wrote: >> On 3/16/26 09:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >>>> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >>>> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. >>> >>> I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily >>> drive... >> >> Um ... I never had much trouble with carbs. Once >> in a great while you might have to replace the >> bowl gasket, but otherwise. > > My R5 carburettor needed cleaning every oil change (every 10000Km). It > had a vent hole in its small gasoline reservoir, and dust entered that > way (my guess). FUEL FILTERS dude !!! Never had a car without one. Cut and added one if they didn't come with. > If I did not clean it, the iddle carburetor jet became blocked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 12:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bbrn8mx1hk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83202 |
On 2026-03-17 08:05, c186282 wrote: > On 3/16/26 17:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-03-16 14:50, c186282 wrote: >>> On 3/16/26 09:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >>>>> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >>>>> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. >>>> >>>> I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily >>>> drive... >>> >>> Um ... I never had much trouble with carbs. Once >>> in a great while you might have to replace the >>> bowl gasket, but otherwise. >> >> My R5 carburettor needed cleaning every oil change (every 10000Km). It >> had a vent hole in its small gasoline reservoir, and dust entered that >> way (my guess). > > FUEL FILTERS dude !!! > > Never had a car without one. Cut and added > one if they didn't come with. Nono. There was a fuel filter, periodically replaced. Again, there was a vent hole, external air to the small gasoline reservoir. Half a cm in diameter. With a rubber lid that closed the hole when pressing the accelerator. > >> If I did not clean it, the iddle carburetor jet became blocked. > > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1r61tF2hu3U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83099 |
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:05:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. > > I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily > drive... Two of my bikes still have carbs. No problem. When a friend got a real job he bought a Volvo. We'd spent our college years keeping old junk running and knew our way around engines. This was the early '70s and the Volvo had a primitive ECU under the passenger seat and I managed to kick a cable loose getting in. The car wouldn't start, so we got out and popped the hood. We realize we were in a brave new world when the damn thing didn't even have a carb. Years later when I bought a Toyota I assumed the ignition wires were under the plastic shroud. Wrong again. Each plug has its own coil. I can't say I miss the wires. I had a first generation Audi with a computer that decided the ignition wires were bad every 15,000 miles and wouldn't start. I carried a spare set. Replace the wires, and I was good for another 15k. There wasn't any misfiring or other symptoms, it just decided it needed new wires. I can't wait for AI automotive control systems making random decisions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a68m8mx4uv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83127 |
On 2026-03-16 21:04, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:05:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >>> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >>> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. >> >> I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily >> drive... > > Two of my bikes still have carbs. No problem. When a friend got a real job > he bought a Volvo. We'd spent our college years keeping old junk running > and knew our way around engines. > > This was the early '70s and the Volvo had a primitive ECU under the > passenger seat and I managed to kick a cable loose getting in. The car > wouldn't start, so we got out and popped the hood. We realize we were in a > brave new world when the damn thing didn't even have a carb. > > Years later when I bought a Toyota I assumed the ignition wires were under > the plastic shroud. Wrong again. Each plug has its own coil. I can't say I > miss the wires. I had a first generation Audi with a computer that decided > the ignition wires were bad every 15,000 miles and wouldn't start. I > carried a spare set. Replace the wires, and I was good for another 15k. > There wasn't any misfiring or other symptoms, it just decided it needed > new wires. > > I can't wait for AI automotive control systems making random decisions. Ha! My car has a canister with coal (graphite?) absorbing the vapours from the gasoline tank. Then a valve allows those gases in the intake to be burned. That valve is computer activated several times per second (has a name that I forget). It broke. As a result, the computer could not regulate gasoline flow correctly and the idle varied, probably fuel expenditure was worse. Then the display said "engine failure", yellow alarm. As a result, the computer decided the engine was not reliable and disabled the anti-skid system. As a result, another alarm went up, and the car would refuse to accelerate to 120 Km/h. And no, the computer log did not say exactly what was wrong. The boss (older than the other chaps) in the garage recognized the symptoms when I said that idle varied. He had another car recently with the same problem. Two visits. In the first one they blamed the economic gasoline I was buying. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pb615$2obtv$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83142 |
On 16/03/2026 21:10, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-03-16 21:04, rbowman wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:05:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 16/03/2026 04:51, c186282 wrote: >>>> I've explained why I won't go fiber - it would be THE >>>> excuse to zap my great old landline phone forever. >>> >>> I bless the last day I ever had to have a carburettor in my daily >>> drive... >> >> Two of my bikes still have carbs. No problem. When a friend got a real >> job >> he bought a Volvo. We'd spent our college years keeping old junk running >> and knew our way around engines. >> >> This was the early '70s and the Volvo had a primitive ECU under the >> passenger seat and I managed to kick a cable loose getting in. The car >> wouldn't start, so we got out and popped the hood. We realize we were >> in a >> brave new world when the damn thing didn't even have a carb. >> >> Years later when I bought a Toyota I assumed the ignition wires were >> under >> the plastic shroud. Wrong again. Each plug has its own coil. I can't >> say I >> miss the wires. I had a first generation Audi with a computer that >> decided >> the ignition wires were bad every 15,000 miles and wouldn't start. I >> carried a spare set. Replace the wires, and I was good for another 15k. >> There wasn't any misfiring or other symptoms, it just decided it needed >> new wires. >> >> I can't wait for AI automotive control systems making random decisions. > > Ha! > > My car has a canister with coal (graphite?) absorbing the vapours from > the gasoline tank. Then a valve allows those gases in the intake to be > burned. That valve is computer activated several times per second (has a > name that I forget). It broke. As a result, the computer could not > regulate gasoline flow correctly and the idle varied, probably fuel > expenditure was worse. > > Then the display said "engine failure", yellow alarm. As a result, the > computer decided the engine was not reliable and disabled the anti-skid > system. As a result, another alarm went up, and the car would refuse to > accelerate to 120 Km/h. > > And no, the computer log did not say exactly what was wrong. The boss > (older than the other chaps) in the garage recognized the symptoms when > I said that idle varied. He had another car recently with the same problem. > The knowledge is filtering down to the grunt mechanics > Two visits. In the first one they blamed the economic gasoline I was > buying. > Back in the day I failed to diagnose a misfire due to a broken capacitor on the ignition coil of a 2CV. Blocked carb jets were an every day occurrence. Plus ça change.... -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-16 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pa24l$2dmau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83127 |
On 2026-03-16, rbowman wrote: [...]> > Years later when I bought a Toyota [...] > > I can't wait for AI automotive control systems making random decisions. Well, probably not random, but as far as disastrous decisions go, doesn't Toyota already have that in their "Unintended Acceleration" offering? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FS0uR.157961$mz3.148194@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #83150 |
On 2026-03-16, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-03-16, rbowman wrote: > > [...]> >> Years later when I bought a Toyota [...] >> >> I can't wait for AI automotive control systems making random decisions. > > Well, probably not random, but as far as disastrous decisions go, > doesn't Toyota already have that in their "Unintended Acceleration" > offering? Oh, so they're doing it too? It wasn't that long ago when "Audi" was said to stand for "Accelerates Under Demonic Influence". Driver's nightmare: being stuck in a traffic jam in front of an Audi and behind a Pinto. Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended; I once saw one that had stenciled across the back: "Tailgaters annoy me." -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pa8a9$2fkq9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83159 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended > ... No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that Ford’s executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that could cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they calculated that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than the actual cost of fixing the problem. The jury did not look kindly on that. Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 06:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1s9ibF8cniU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83166 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended ... > > No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim > won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that Ford’s > executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that could > cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they calculated > that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than the actual > cost of fixing the problem. Common practice. A good part of my college statistics course was finding the sweet point where the cost of rigorous QA was greater than the cost of replacing defective devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 09:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pb6bi$2obtv$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83198 |
On 17/03/2026 06:10, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended ... >> >> No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim >> won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that Ford’s >> executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that could >> cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they calculated >> that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than the actual >> cost of fixing the problem. > > Common practice. A good part of my college statistics course was finding > the sweet point where the cost of rigorous QA was greater than the cost of > replacing defective devices. > Yes. US Robotics had 'lifetime guarantees' on their modems. When mine was struck by lightning, I sent it back and got a new one in the post It's almost impossible to proof electronics against a direct strike to the telephone wire...cheaper to simply replace the odd modem. Likewise the cost of ensuring every 'new build' meets 'disability regulations' vastly exceeds the cost of giving every paraplegic a $50,000 grant to modify their house to their needs. In the case of the Pinto though, lives were at stake. -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <12iuR.25562$At07.12173@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #83221 |
On 2026-03-17, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 17/03/2026 06:10, rbowman wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended ... >>> >>> No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim >>> won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that Ford’s >>> executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that could >>> cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they calculated >>> that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than the actual >>> cost of fixing the problem. >> >> Common practice. A good part of my college statistics course was finding >> the sweet point where the cost of rigorous QA was greater than the cost of >> replacing defective devices. > > Yes. US Robotics had 'lifetime guarantees' on their modems. > When mine was struck by lightning, I sent it back and got a new one in > the post > > It's almost impossible to proof electronics against a direct strike to > the telephone wire...cheaper to simply replace the odd modem. > > Likewise the cost of ensuring every 'new build' meets 'disability > regulations' vastly exceeds the cost of giving every paraplegic a > $50,000 grant to modify their house to their needs. > > In the case of the Pinto though, lives were at stake. So? There are armies of actuaries out there calculating the cost of a human life (lost income, etc.) so it can be plugged into the same equations. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 03:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5PGcnQi5n5dPmST0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83166 |
On 3/16/26 20:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended >> ... > > No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim > won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that > Ford’s executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that > could cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they > calculated that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than > the actual cost of fixing the problem. > > The jury did not look kindly on that. > > Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>. They WOULD explode/burn. Bad positioning combined with a too-light frame. HAVE driven Pintos ... rock-bottom budget vehicles. They will get you there however, so long as nobody whacks you from behind. The old Beetles were even more of a death trap. Know TWO guys who died plus one who spent a year in a brace. The front seats are only held in by small bolts ... so if hit from behind it snaps back and you break yer neck against the rear seat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 12:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nkrn8mxerm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83166 |
On 2026-03-17 01:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended >> ... > > No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim > won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that > Ford’s executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that > could cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they > calculated that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than > the actual cost of fixing the problem. > > The jury did not look kindly on that. > > Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>. Who did that gag? :-D -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10pcre0$3d18p$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83227 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:48:07 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-03-17 01:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended >>> ... >> >> No rumour. ... >> >> Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>. > > Who did that gag? :-D It’s from this movie <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286/>, “Top Secret”. One in the long line of Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker films (think “Airplane”, “Naked Gun”, “Hot Shots!” etc), where the script is so full of gags that the plot shows serious signs of giving way at times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 11:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sibq8mxend.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83283 |
On 2026-03-18 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:48:07 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-03-17 01:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended >>>> ... >>> >>> No rumour. ... >>> >>> Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>. >> >> Who did that gag? :-D > > It’s from this movie <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286/>, “Top > Secret”. One in the long line of Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker films (think > “Airplane”, “Naked Gun”, “Hot Shots!” etc), where the script is so > full of gags that the plot shows serious signs of giving way at times. Mmm, I don't remember if I have watched this one. Probably not on 1984. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <02iuR.25561$At07.23268@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #83166 |
On 2026-03-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode if rear-ended >> ... > > No rumour. There was an actual lawsuit against Ford (which the victim > won). Among the evidence that was uncovered, it was revealed that > Ford’s executives knew there was a likelihood of a rear-end crash that > could cause a fire leading to serious injury or death, but they > calculated that the expected cost of the lawsuits would be less than > the actual cost of fixing the problem. > > The jury did not look kindly on that. > > Also a running gag <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Qj58o87sY>. Good one. :-) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-17 00:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1rmooF5dtcU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83159 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:02:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Oh, so they're doing it too? It wasn't that long ago when "Audi" > was said to stand for "Accelerates Under Demonic Influence". I missed that era. I had a 100LS. I can't blame the car but it certainly wasn't geared for the national 55 mph speed limit crap. 55 was only meant to be briefly encountered on the way to a real cruising speed. > > Driver's nightmare: being stuck in a traffic jam in front of an Audi and > behind a Pinto. Rumour had it that the Pinto's gas tank would explode > if rear-ended; I once saw one that had stenciled across the back: > "Tailgaters annoy me." At the time the joke was a woman hit the trifecta if she drove a Pinto, used tampons, and smoked More cigarettes. Mores had more tar and nicotine than most cigarettes on the market, and there was an outburst of toxic shock syndrome from contaminated tampons. I don't know what hygenic products she used but my lead girl drove a Pinto and smoked Mores. She didn't find funny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web