Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70556 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 373 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-26 19:58 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 20:30 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-27 09:39 +0100
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-09-28 08:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-26 19:10 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-26 21:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:20 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-28 15:45 +0000
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:30 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 17:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 22:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 16:40 +0100
OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 16:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 18:19 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-29 20:00 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer (was: Re: OT - TV) André Coutanche <acoutanche@gmx.co.uk> - 2026-09-29 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:33 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 22:48 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:07 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-30 15:51 -0700
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 10:57 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 08:10 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 01:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-30 00:46 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-29 22:39 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-30 12:25 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:34 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:31 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-09-30 14:47 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:58 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:36 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:12 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 16:14 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:35 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-01 17:53 +0000
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 19:03 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 21:50 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:25 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer marika <marika5000@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 00:03 +0000
Song of the Track/Ceol na Loidhne JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-09 15:27 +0100
Re: Song of the Track/Ceol na Loidhne Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> - 2026-10-10 09:23 +0100
Re: Song of the Track/Ceol na Loidhne John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-10 10:37 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-01 11:51 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 14:55 +0100
Re: OT - Lehrer Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-09-30 14:15 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 19:58 +1000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-27 22:13 +1000
Re: OT - TV Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2026-10-08 21:51 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 18:47 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 11:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-12 11:58 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 22:37 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 13:17 +0100
[OT] - audio distribution, Rediffusion-style (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-28 16:43 +0100
Re: [OT] - audio distribution, Rediffusion-style Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2026-10-08 22:22 +0200
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 11:44 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-27 16:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-27 18:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-27 18:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 18:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 15:56 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-28 16:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-28 17:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-09-29 12:01 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 13:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-29 14:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Other John <nomail@here.org> - 2026-09-29 16:53 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 10:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-09-30 13:36 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:23 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:37 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:28 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:35 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:15 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:24 +0200
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-01 17:17 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:10 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:42 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-01 13:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-03 21:10 +1000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:39 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-04 21:26 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:19 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:36 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:18 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 12:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 12:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 15:59 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-03 15:56 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-03 17:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-05 01:27 -0400
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-05 07:55 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-05 14:54 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-05 15:17 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-05 11:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-05 11:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-06 17:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-06 18:58 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-06 20:36 +0200
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-07 09:00 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:04 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:21 +0200
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-07 11:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:37 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-08 13:51 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 13:04 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-08 22:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-09 22:22 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-09 22:33 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-10 19:20 +0200
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-09 22:20 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-09 22:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-09 23:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-10 19:34 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-11 21:15 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 11:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-11 22:15 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 14:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-11 15:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 18:35 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-11 18:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 20:10 +0100
Re: OT - TV NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-10-11 20:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 18:11 +1100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-12 02:24 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-12 07:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-12 03:13 -0400
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:07 +1100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-12 18:21 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-13 22:36 +1100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 18:17 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 10:55 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 18:09 +1100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 17:58 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-11 15:18 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 14:59 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:29 +0200
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-11 22:17 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 23:46 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 10:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-12 18:28 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 19:11 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 01:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-13 06:16 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 08:27 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 18:40 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:54 +0200
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-13 19:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:10 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-15 00:06 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 20:21 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:09 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 22:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-15 00:09 +1100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:31 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 08:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-13 17:21 +0000
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-13 12:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 13:16 +0200
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-13 12:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 18:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-13 18:16 +0000
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 19:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:00 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 20:28 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-13 22:51 -0400
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-14 00:32 -0400
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-14 01:26 -0400
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:58 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 09:07 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:43 +0000
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 08:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:21 +0200
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:48 +0000
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 04:56 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-14 09:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 04:48 +0000
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 04:32 +0000
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-13 16:28 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 19:36 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 20:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 05:07 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-14 09:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:59 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 20:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:16 +0200
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-13 23:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-13 23:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:39 -0400
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-14 03:21 +0000
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-14 01:18 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-14 12:42 +0200
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 08:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 09:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-14 04:42 -0400
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:18 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:45 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:25 +0200
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-14 12:34 +0200
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-14 12:31 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 13:21 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 13:31 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:48 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 18:50 +0000
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 05:14 +0000
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-14 16:09 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-14 11:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 19:16 +0000
Re: OT - TV Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:00 -0500
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-15 00:19 +1100
Re: OT - TV Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-10-13 17:06 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-15 00:01 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 17:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 17:45 +0000
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-14 17:44 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-12 13:25 +0200
Re: OT - TV wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-10-13 11:21 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0100
Re: OT - TV rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-13 16:55 +0000
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-14 16:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-10-14 09:57 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 13:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-15 12:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-14 23:14 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-15 12:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:32 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-15 16:45 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-15 17:24 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-16 14:04 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-16 18:31 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-17 11:53 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-18 17:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-18 17:53 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-18 17:55 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-18 18:18 +0100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-19 13:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-19 15:36 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:16 +0200
Re: OT - TV richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-10-16 13:15 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:44 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-17 23:09 +1100
Re: OT - TV Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-10-18 10:45 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 10:45 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:14 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 12:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-12 12:07 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-12 13:27 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-12 13:57 +0200
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:11 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-12 13:26 +0200
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-10 03:38 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-10 19:35 +0200
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-10 12:44 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-10 13:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-11 00:01 -0400
Re: OT - TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-11 05:23 +0000
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:21 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:56 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:18 +1100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:30 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-11 10:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-11 10:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-11 18:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:24 +1100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-10 19:30 +0200
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-12 19:26 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-12 19:40 +0100
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-13 12:03 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:31 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-13 18:20 +0100
Re: OT - TV chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:14 -0500
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-17 01:01 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-12 19:45 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-12 19:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 08:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:13 -0500
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:22 +0200
Re: OT - TV JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-10-13 12:05 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-12 21:56 +0200
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-08 15:44 +0100
[OT] hybrids (was: Re: OT - TV) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-08 22:12 +0100
Re: [OT] hybrids liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-08 22:42 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:00 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:06 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-10-07 15:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-08 15:49 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-08 13:12 -0400
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-08 22:17 +0100
Re: OT - TV Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2026-10-09 08:12 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-10 04:21 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-10 08:25 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-08 13:54 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-06 14:40 -0400
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 08:02 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 12:47 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-06 00:23 +0100
Re: OT - TV Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-10-12 21:59 +1100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 18:41 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-03 22:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-03 21:24 -0400
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-04 08:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-04 09:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-09-30 15:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-29 13:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:54 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:15 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:27 +0200
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:13 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 11:19 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 13:29 +0100
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-09-30 13:54 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 14:34 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-09-30 18:08 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 02:22 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:37 +0000
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 10:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 09:41 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:37 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 11:50 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-30 13:08 +0000
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 00:50 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 06:12 +0000
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 03:29 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:53 +0200
Re: OT - TV Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-10-01 03:32 -0400
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:49 +0200
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 12:57 +0100
Re: OT - TV liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-10-01 13:27 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:19 +0200
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:34 +0000
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-02 06:52 +0000
Re: OT - TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-04 07:52 +0100
Re: OT - TV c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-04 03:15 -0400
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-04 15:51 +0100
Re: OT - TV The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:16 +0100
Re: OT - TV Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2026-10-16 18:22 +0000
Re: OT - TV John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-10-16 20:32 +0100
Re: OT - TV "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0100
Re: OT - TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-27 13:12 +0200
Page 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11alr4b$p00g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70880 |
On 2026/10/13 12:8:51, JMB99 wrote: > This seems to confirm what I thought > > > > "AI Overview > > About 92 percent of new cars ordered in the UK are automatic > transmissions, while manual cars make up only about 7.9 percent of > delivered new vehicles." > Coul you re-ask the AI, specifying fuel-only cars? > > Many new drivers are taught on automatics so would need a further test > to drive a manual car. > Really? I thought automatic-only test-sitting - whatever it is intended eventually to drive - was (in England) the exception rather than the rule, used mainly by those who find driving _at all_ difficult.> > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf An act like Morecambe and Wise happens once in a lifetime. Why did it have to happen in mine? - Bernie Winters quoted by Barry Cryer, RT 2013/11/30-12/6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DzuzS.202987$_oJb.17399@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #70893 |
On 2026-10-13, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > On 2026/10/13 12:8:51, JMB99 wrote: > >> This seems to confirm what I thought >> >> "AI Overview >> >> About 92 percent of new cars ordered in the UK are automatic >> transmissions, while manual cars make up only about 7.9 percent of >> delivered new vehicles." > > Coul you re-ask the AI, specifying fuel-only cars? This implies, I presume, that results of searches that do not involve AI are inadmissable to this discussion. ;-) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 19:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11alucq$qg8c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70894 |
On 2026/10/13 19:16:3, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-10-13, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> On 2026/10/13 12:8:51, JMB99 wrote: >> >>> This seems to confirm what I thought >>> >>> "AI Overview >>> >>> About 92 percent of new cars ordered in the UK are automatic >>> transmissions, while manual cars make up only about 7.9 percent of >>> delivered new vehicles." >> >> Coul you re-ask the AI, specifying fuel-only cars? > > This implies, I presume, that results of searches that > do not involve AI are inadmissable to this discussion. ;-) > No; if you're willing to do the hard slog yourself, go ahead! And yes, I do appreciate that AI results can be misleading. Nevertheless, I asked Google: "In the UK, of all cars on the road (so not just new sales), what proportion are (a) fuel-only, manual gearbox (b) fuel-only, automatic gearbox (c) electric or hybrid, manual gearbox (d) electric or hybrid, in effect automatic gearbox? I appreciate that some electric and hybrid models are automatic by nature." and it's reply: While the UK government’s Department for Transport (DfT) and industry groups like cap hpi track precise overall vehicle breakdowns, they do not publish an exact four-way percentage matrix combining transmission type directly with exact powertrain sub-categories for all active vehicles. However, by aggregating data on total licensed vehicles, overall automatic vs. manual market penetration, and powertrain types, the current overall landscape of the roughly 34.6 million cars on UK roads breaks down approximately as follows: (a) Fuel-Only, Manual Gearbox: ~55% to 60% Despite manuals rapidly going extinct in showrooms (representing fewer than 8% of new sales), manual-transmission vehicles still represent the clear majority of all cars actively on UK roads. This is because the average age of a used vehicle in the UK is nearly 10 years, stretching back to a time when petrol and diesel cars were predominantly manual. Recent DfT and industry tracking states that roughly 61% of all active cars in the UK remain manual, nearly all of which are fuel-only. (b) Fuel-Only, Automatic Gearbox: ~12% to 15% In the 2010s, opting for an automatic in a standard petrol or diesel car usually carried a hefty price premium (often up to £3,000), keeping their market share low on the secondhand market. While conventional fuel-only automatics have grown more popular recently due to falling price premiums, they represent a modest slice of the historical, overall fleet compared to manual fuel-only cars. (c) Electric or Hybrid, Manual Gearbox: ~0% This category is virtually non-existent. Fully electric vehicles (EVs) deliver instant torque and do not use a multi-speed gearbox or clutch. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains are engineered to work with automatic, CVT, or e-CVT units to seamlessly balance engine and battery power. Aside from extremely niche or simulated enthusiast exceptions, there are essentially zero manual electrics or hybrids on the road. (d) Electric or Hybrid, in effect Automatic Gearbox: ~25% to 30% According to analysts at cap hpi, total automatics on UK roads reached 29.3%. Because almost all EVs and hybrids are automatic by design, and because electrified vehicles have made up a massive chunk of newly registered automatics over the last 5–7 years, the vast majority of that ~29.3% automatic share belongs to the electrified category." So there you have it: Cars on British roads are about 61% manual, and of automatics, most of them are electric or hybrid. An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although _new_ automatics carried the price premium mentioned, _second-hand_ ones were often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; as a result my first few were automatic, since as an impecunious twentysomething-year-old, I bought cheap (paid 99 for my first, a 3.3L Vauxhall Ventora [I can't imagine a new driver even _getting_ insurance on a 3.3l car nowadays!]. _Had_ been a luxury car, well before it reached me; sadly, it rusted around me, like all [at least British] cars of those days, particularly Vauxhalls.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf An act like Morecambe and Wise happens once in a lifetime. Why did it have to happen in mine? - Bernie Winters quoted by Barry Cryer, RT 2013/11/30-12/6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11alv4m$ocpj$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70896 |
On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ > automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were > often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed it with fuel -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11am0ov$rf03$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70900 |
On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ >> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were >> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; > > The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. > It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a > fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. > No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good > deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 > year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed > it with fuel > > There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer bonnet.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, clubs them on the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 22:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eeWdnaKTL7mAc1P3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #70906 |
On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ >>> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were >>> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; >> >> The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. >> It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a >> fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. >> No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good >> deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 >> year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed >> it with fuel >> >> > There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury > model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a > luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It > certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old > enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a > pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone > told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine > compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer > bonnet.) DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! Intentional ? 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 00:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11an0lp$15mil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70914 |
On Tue, 10/13/2026 10:51 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_
>>>> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were
>>>> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them;
>>>
>>> The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old.
>>> It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a
>>> fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor.
>>> No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good
>>> deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5
>>> year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed
>>> it with fuel
>>>
>>>
>> There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury
>> model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a
>> luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It
>> certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old
>> enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a
>> pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone
>> told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine
>> compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer
>> bonnet.)
>
> DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The
> modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic.
>
> And try to WORK on the packed-in engines !
>
> Intentional ?
>
> 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered
> a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-)
>
Well, petrol is expensive there, so there's no particular
advantage to "driving a boat". You'd just end up leaving it
at home.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 01:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tnGdnbLd1pI4j1L3nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #70917 |
On 10/14/26 00:32, Paul wrote: > On Tue, 10/13/2026 10:51 PM, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>>> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ >>>>> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were >>>>> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; >>>> >>>> The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. >>>> It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a >>>> fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. >>>> No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good >>>> deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 >>>> year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed >>>> it with fuel >>>> >>>> >>> There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury >>> model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a >>> luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It >>> certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old >>> enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a >>> pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone >>> told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine >>> compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer >>> bonnet.) >> >> DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The >> modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. >> >> And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! >> >> Intentional ? >> >> 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered >> a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-) >> > > Well, petrol is expensive there, so there's no particular > advantage to "driving a boat". You'd just end up leaving it > at home. In USA we often call boats "a hole in the ocean into which you pour money" :-) Yea, yea ... some people LOVE them - but they're usually DESTITUTE people. Boats+Nature - they just FALL APART. You'd need a lot of stainless steel with the latest synthetics around it. $$$ !!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 14:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11anurm$1gdf9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70923 |
On 2026/10/14 6:26:58, c186282 wrote: > On 10/14/26 00:32, Paul wrote: >> On Tue, 10/13/2026 10:51 PM, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>> On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>>>> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ >>>>>> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were >>>>>> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; >>>>> >>>>> The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. >>>>> It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a >>>>> fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. >>>>> No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good >>>>> deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 >>>>> year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed >>>>> it with fuel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury >>>> model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a >>>> luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It >>>> certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old >>>> enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a >>>> pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone >>>> told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine >>>> compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer >>>> bonnet.) >>> >>> DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The >>> modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. >>> >>> And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! Though I did discover (I think it was on my current one, which isn't really a snub-nose) that the packed-in appearance you see when you lift the bonnet (hood) is at least partly because there's a moulded piece of black plastic which makes the whole underbonnet area look neat, and full (and _may_ have some effect on airflow, though I doubt it); when you remove that, what's underneath looks much as I expected a car engine to look. >>> >>> Intentional ? There _may_ be some such intention, for medium-to-long bonnet shapes; for the snub-nose types, I suspect it's just that it's nearly impossible to make them easy to work on and still get them into that cramped space. >>> >>> 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered >>> a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-) >>> I think it's been true to say that for some years, most models widely bought come with 1.3 and 1.6 litre options, or 1.9 for the Diesel option. Anything above 2 would be considered ostentatious or performance-minded. Possibly excepting 4WDs, or SUVs as we seem to have to call them nowadays. Automatics used to tend to have one size larger (e. g. 1.6 instead of 1.3), back when such a box made for a noticeable loss of power; not sure about now. Really compacts might come with a 1.1, or even a 995. >> >> Well, petrol is expensive there, so there's no particular Currently, I think it's about 1.6 pounds; certainly Diesel is around 2 (or 1.99 if you're lucky). And that's a litre, not gallon. >> advantage to "driving a boat". You'd just end up leaving it >> at home. Plus, you'd have difficulty steering it round many towns, and parking it. > > In USA we often call boats "a hole in the ocean > into which you pour money" :-) I _think_ Paul was referring to large cars, not _actual_ boats! Despite being a maritime nation, not a lot of Brits own a boat (for a start, most people would have nowhere to put one). [] (The "boat" nickname also is a dig at the large American-type cars of the 50s and 60s, which tended to have very soft suspension, and thus wallow in a boat-like manner - again, not suitable for windy Britain. [That's wine-dy, not wind-y.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Who were your favourite TV stars or shows when you were a child? Sadly they've all been arrested ... Ian Hislop, in Radio Times 28 September-4 October 2013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nja1nhFc9lcU36@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70942 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:08:04 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > Though I did discover (I think it was on my current one, which isn't > really a snub-nose) that the packed-in appearance you see when you lift > the bonnet (hood) is at least partly because there's a moulded piece of > black plastic which makes the whole underbonnet area look neat, and full > (and _may_ have some effect on airflow, though I doubt it); when you > remove that, what's underneath looks much as I expected a car engine to > look. My Toyota engine has a plastic piece like that. When I bought the first one I assumed it covered the distributor and plug wires. Wrong again. Each plug has a coil that's fired by the ECU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 09:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11and7i$194fq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70917 |
On 14/10/2026 05:32, Paul wrote: > On Tue, 10/13/2026 10:51 PM, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>>> An interesting wrinkle: when I started driving, although_new_ >>>>> automatics carried the price premium mentioned,_second-hand_ ones were >>>>> often cheaper, presumably because nobody wanted them; >>>> >>>> The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. >>>> It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a >>>> fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. >>>> No one wants them, except people like us who can pick up a really good >>>> deal on a 10 year old auto luxury car for far less than a clapped out 5 >>>> year old shopping trolley. And have money left over to fix it and feed >>>> it with fuel >>>> >>>> >>> There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury >>> model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a >>> luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It >>> certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old >>> enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a >>> pain!), and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone >>> told me - was such that a small person could have stood in the engine >>> compartment next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer >>> bonnet.) >> >> DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The >> modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. >> >> And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! >> >> Intentional ? >> >> 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered >> a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-) >> > > Well, petrol is expensive there, so there's no particular > advantage to "driving a boat". You'd just end up leaving it > at home. > And the fact is, European and Japanese style cars get better performance out of 3 cylinders than many US cars do out of 6 Try 0-60 in 5 seconds, top speed 140 mph and 34 mpg. From 3 litres of DIESEL A little turbocharged 3 cylinder is perfectly adequate for 'soccer moms' to fetch the kids in and hit the supermarket Buying fresh food 3 times a week would get expensive in an unparkable V8 and as for solid rear axles, steering boxes. and leaf springs? Not seen that on a car since the 1960s. European cars mostly can GO ROUND CORNERS because roads follow old droving tracks that wove in and out of trees and streams long after the trees and streams were gone. US cars are big clunky and fuel hungry because the roads are big straight and the fuel just flowed out of the ground and parking lots are ten acre stretches of asphalt -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nja0rfFc9lcU32@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70927 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 09:07:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > European cars mostly can GO ROUND CORNERS because roads follow old > droving tracks that wove in and out of trees and streams long after the > trees and streams were gone. American cars do quite well. In college I participated in a couple of rallies. The well heeled frat boys had their European sporty cars and I had my '60 Plymouth. You might want to consider why New England is called New England. I cut my teeth on dirt roads and there often were many in the rally route. I don't know about more formal rallies but another advantage of a big American car was having three navigators on board.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nj8pajFsb3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70914 |
c186282 wrote: > DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The > modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. Several of my cars have been low with long bonnets (ok, not exactly E-types), my torso is quite long, so I tended to drive with the seat laid flat and far back, but in recent years my back started to complain getting in and out. I had an SUV as a hire car for a week and my back appreciated the difference. In general I dislike big SUVs as most people don't actually need them (myself included). It took me over a year to decide which type of 'compact' SUV to buy, it's so nice to just step in and have the seat naturally be at arse-height, and step out and have the ground naturally be at the level my feet reach. I still haven't got used to the different visibility from the snub nose and slab sides though. > And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! > Intentional ? That battle was lost many years ago ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj9ugnFc9lcU27@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70925 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 08:29:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > It took me over a year to decide which type of 'compact' SUV to buy, > it's so nice to just step in and have the seat naturally be at > arse-height, and step out and have the ground naturally be at the level > my feet reach. Exiting my Yaris is slightly easier than the AH Sprite I had but I was nimbler 50 years ago. The other drawback is the difficulty finding the thing in a parking lot full of pickups and SUVs or trying to see around them. > I still haven't got used to the different visibility from the snub nose > and slab sides though. I wouldn't call it a snub nose but the hood line drops enough I can't see it. iirc the original Beetle was the same. When parallel parking I tend to leave a little too much room in front since I can't judge it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Chevrolet Now there was a car. The twin shark fins were purely decorative but I used to imagine them as twin machine gun mounts to eliminate offending drivers. Real bumpers too, in case some idiot parked you in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 16:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qof4qmx2vl.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #70914 |
On 2026-10-14 04:51, c186282 wrote: > On 10/13/26 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2026/10/13 20:0:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 13/10/2026 19:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: ... > DID like the cars with the long bonnets. The > modern 'snub-nosed', not nearly as aesthetic. > > And try to WORK on the packed-in engines ! > > Intentional ? > > 3.3 is "luxury" in the UK ??? Considered > a 'mid-sized' in the USA :-) The most packed-in engine I saw was in the Renault Super 5 Turbo, a kind of widow maker were it not the the owners were often too young. Drop a nut, it doesn't get to the ground. I had basically the same car, but with just a 1.1 L engine, 42 "horses". They could put 3 engines like that in the same space. So with just one engine there was space for a full litter of kittens and another of dogs, 2 month old, with room to spare. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nja134Fc9lcU33@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70949 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:21:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I had basically the same car, but with just a 1.1 L engine, 42 "horses". > They could put 3 engines like that in the same space. So with just one > engine there was space for a full litter of kittens and another of dogs, > 2 month old, with room to spare. Snowbirds tend to park their rigs for the winter and use a smaller car to get around. In the southwest when spring comes and they want to go back on the road they may have to evict packrats, rattlesnakes, and other tenants. The snakes require some care to extract but are preferable to the damn rats building a nest and chewing on components.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 04:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj8gclFc9lcU21@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70906 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 20:28:29 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > There's a lot in what you say! That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury > model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a > luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It > certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old > enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a > pain!), > and that straight six engine - same as a Bedford truck, someone told me > - > was such that a small person could have stood in the engine compartment > next to it. (The car was vaguely Capri-shaped, but longer bonnet.) I had a Chrysler New Yorker with a straight eight. A family of small people could have lived in the engine compartment. I always like straight engines, all the plugs lined up in a neat row where you could get at them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 09:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1s2yoyi.tp1gookm3ta8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70906 |
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: [...] >That Ventora - not, to me, a known luxury > model, but _any_ 3.3 litre car in Britain was (still is, somewhat) a > luxury car - and, as you say, I had enough to maintain and feed it. (It > certainly was _comfortable_.) Wasn't hard to maintain - K reg, so old > enough to have nothing fancy (except automatic choke, which was a > pain!), On that engine there was a thin sheet of metal between the inlet and exhaust manifolds. It was supposed to heat up quickly and evaporate any petrol droplets that impinged on it, so making the 'choking' period very short. When a small hole burned through it and allowed exhaust gasses to blow into the inlet manifold - also causing occasional backfires - it took a long while to track down the fault. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 04:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj8fs8Fc9lcU20@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70900 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 20:00:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The thing is, a luxury car - Mercedes, or Jaguar, is worthless when old. > It chews fuel compared with a tinplate shopping trolley and it cots a > fair bit to keep on the road. And its lost the swank factor. I worked with a guy whose dream was to buy a Mercedes. He finally did get a 190D fintail. I thought the thing looked suspiciously like a Studebaker Lark but he was happy. A classmate's father thought he had arrived when he bought a Humber Super Snipe. God only knows how he got it but it didn't do much for Eddie's street cred when he borrowed dad's car for a date. My father-in-law had a thing for Checker Marathons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_Marathon. I will say you could hold a Cornell University style orgy in the backseat of those puppies. Strange tastes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 04:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj8evbFc9lcU19@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70896 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 19:47:53 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > No; if you're willing to do the hard slog yourself, go ahead! And yes, I > do appreciate that AI results can be misleading. I just finished Craig Stanfill's latest book 'Carbon Zero'. A researcher tasks her AI to reduce the carbon footprint to zero. The AI concludes exterminating the human race would be most effective. Chaos ensues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast
csiph-web