On Thu, 26 May 2016 14:55:16 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:42:29 PM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:


I apparently made a mistake in snipping. Sorry.

What trade are you proposing, that you will remove the "" at the beginning of all the subject lines you rename if I never
make another mistake? It's a deal!


Wait! Don't take that deal. I'm not a lawyer, but I do play one on usenet.

Based on the terms of your proposed deal "if I never make another mistake"
means that Stormy doesn't have to remove the "" until you "never make
another mistake". We won't know if that has happened until the end of time.

Well, at least until the end of your time if we are speaking in the terrestrial
sense, even longer if we believe in an after-life.

Your deal should be structured such that Stormy will remove the "" *now*
based on your promise not to make another mistake, along with a clause that
states what will happen if you do.

Stormy, based on the advice of my esteemed counsel I hereby wish to withdraw my previous proposal and submit the following
for your consideration if approved by DerbyDad03:

"From the moment you, Stormin Mormon, agree to this proposal; when changing a subject line for any reason you, Stormin
Mormon, conceive you will remove the " " at the beginning of the new subject line. This is not limited to only the " "
at the beginning, but any and all indication that there was a prior original post. And I, Gordon Shumway (my name is as real
as Stormy's too) will never ever admit to another mistake for the rest of my life."

Does that new proposal pass your inspection Derbydad03?


Stormy, I'm switching sides. Don't take this deal. He's asking you to do what he wants and
all he has to do is not admit to further mistakes. He's not saying he won't make mistakes,
just that he won't admit to them. I don't like it.

P.S.: Your retainer is in the mail.

I lost my retainer back when I was a teenager. Had to go to the orthodontist to get
a new one. Dad was ****ed. Where did you find it?

Wait just a minute! Whose side are you on?

How about if I amend it to this:

"From the moment you, Stormin Mormon, agree to this proposal; when changing a subject line for any reason you, Stormin
Mormon, conceive you will remove the " " at the beginning of the new subject line. This is not limited to only the " "
at the beginning, but any and all indication that there was a prior original post. And I, Gordon Shumway (my name is as real
as Stormy's too) will admit to a mistake if I make one."

Does that satisfy my shyster ambulance chaser?

On 5/26/2016 5:41 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:

Your deal should be structured such that Stormy will remove the "" *now*
based on your promise not to make another mistake, along with a clause that
states what will happen if you do.

Stormy, based on the advice of my esteemed counsel I hereby wish to withdraw my previous proposal and submit the following
for your consideration if approved by DerbyDad03:

"From the moment you, Stormin Mormon, agree to this proposal; when changing a subject line for any reason you, Stormin
Mormon, conceive you will remove the " " at the beginning of the new subject line. This is not limited to only the " "
at the beginning, but any and all indication that there was a prior original post. And I, Gordon Shumway (my name is as real
as Stormy's too) will never ever admit to another mistake for the rest of my life."

Does that new proposal pass your inspection Derbydad03?

P.S.: Your retainer is in the mail.


Will have to submit that to counsel for approval,
but at first read it seems reasonable.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/26/2016 5:55 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:42:29 PM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
"From the moment you, Stormin Mormon, agree to this proposal; when changing a subject line for any reason you, Stormin
Mormon, conceive you will remove the " " at the beginning of the new subject line. This is not limited to only the " "
at the beginning, but any and all indication that there was a prior original post. And I, Gordon Shumway (my name is as real
as Stormy's too) will never ever admit to another mistake for the rest of my life."

Does that new proposal pass your inspection Derbydad03?


Stormy, I'm switching sides. Don't take this deal. He's asking you to do what he wants and
all he has to do is not admit to further mistakes. He's not saying he won't make mistakes,
just that he won't admit to them. I don't like it.

P.S.: Your retainer is in the mail.

I lost my retainer back when I was a teenager. Had to go to the orthodontist to get
a new one. Dad was ****ed. Where did you find it?


Hmm. Well, I'll have to get a second usenet
attorney's advice. Your opinion does show
considerable merit.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:28:18 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 12:20:52 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:05:29 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:53:27 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

Would you believe I made a mistake?

Golly Gee. It can't be the first one.

Yes it was! It all depends on when you start counting. ;-)

The last time I was wrong it was a mistake.

People aren't usually wrong on purpose.

--
WinError: Unable to exit Windows. Try the door.

On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:48:56 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:16:23 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:57:00 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:20:14 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/21/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
When I`m using the riding mower and put it in reverse with the blades engaged the engine stop. It`s a real pain to disengage the blades and then back up. There are not any kids or pets in the area so everything is clear. How can I correct this problem? Thanks for any advice Herb


Government mandated rules are to protect the dumbest among us.

Er..... how is cutting in reverse more dangerous than cutting going forwards?

Going backwards you could fall off backwards and have the mower go over
you. Going forward that can't happen, or at least it's much harder to
happen.

That implies the mower has poor stability.


No it doesn't.

Then why does it fall over?

Reading comprehension problem? I never said the mower falls over, I said
it's possible to fall over backwards while in reverse and have the mower
run you over with the blades engaged. Another reason would be that you
can't see behind you well when backing up.

I assumed you meant the mower falls over tipping you off, because otherwise you have a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics, especially momentum.


I understand physics very well. With a tractor backing up at a constant
speed, in a straight line, there is no momentum issue with regard to falling one way or the other. Newton figured that out 400 years ago.

So like I said, no danger of falling off. Apart from the acceleration/deceleration of the mower. To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning.

--
What do you call kinky sex with chocolate?
S&M&M

On 5/26/2016 4:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2016 11:08 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:


As for your analogy, I'd not expect a book to be entirely on one topic.
Other things would get mentioned.


Really? I have a book on 1950's automobiles and now find out it is
defective. There is no mention of ships or airplanes and not a single
meatloaf recipe. Damn, nothing but cars.

I guess there were better manners back then.
People stayed on topic. I used to have a book
that stayed on topic. Like yours, from the
fifties. A couple generations later, we have
new math, common core, thread drift.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 6:50:24 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:28:18 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 12:20:52 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:05:29 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:53:27 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

Would you believe I made a mistake?

Golly Gee. It can't be the first one.

Yes it was! It all depends on when you start counting. ;-)

The last time I was wrong it was a mistake.

People aren't usually wrong on purpose.


You are wrong so often I was beginning to think that you were doing it on purpose.
I didn't realize anyone could actually be so wrong so often without trying to be.

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:48:56 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:16:23 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:57:00 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:20:14 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/21/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
When I`m using the riding mower and put it in reverse with the blades engaged the engine stop. It`s a real pain to disengage the blades and then back up. There are not any kids or pets in the area so everything is clear. How can I correct this problem? Thanks for any advice Herb


Government mandated rules are to protect the dumbest among us.

Er..... how is cutting in reverse more dangerous than cutting going forwards?

Going backwards you could fall off backwards and have the mower go over
you. Going forward that can't happen, or at least it's much harder to
happen.

That implies the mower has poor stability.


No it doesn't.

Then why does it fall over?

Reading comprehension problem? I never said the mower falls over, I said
it's possible to fall over backwards while in reverse and have the mower
run you over with the blades engaged. Another reason would be that you
can't see behind you well when backing up.

I assumed you meant the mower falls over tipping you off, because otherwise you have a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics, especially momentum.


I understand physics very well. With a tractor backing up at a constant
speed, in a straight line, there is no momentum issue with regard to falling one way or the other. Newton figured that out 400 years ago.

So like I said, no danger of falling off. Apart from the acceleration/deceleration of the mower. To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning.


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

On 5/27/2016 8:44 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:48:56 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:16:23 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:57:00 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:20:14 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/21/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
When I`m using the riding mower and put it in reverse with the blades engaged the engine stop. It`s a real pain to disengage the blades and then back up. There are not any kids or pets in the area so everything is clear. How can I correct this problem? Thanks for any advice Herb


Please seek out the untrimmed Text Anonymous chapter near year.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 27 May 2016 13:44:28 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:48:56 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:16:23 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:57:00 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:20:14 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/21/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
When I`m using the riding mower and put it in reverse with the blades engaged the engine stop. It`s a real pain to disengage the blades and then back up. There are not any kids or pets in the area so everything is clear. How can I correct this problem? Thanks for any advice Herb


Government mandated rules are to protect the dumbest among us.

Er..... how is cutting in reverse more dangerous than cutting going forwards?

Going backwards you could fall off backwards and have the mower go over
you. Going forward that can't happen, or at least it's much harder to
happen.

That implies the mower has poor stability.


No it doesn't.

Then why does it fall over?

Reading comprehension problem? I never said the mower falls over, I said
it's possible to fall over backwards while in reverse and have the mower
run you over with the blades engaged. Another reason would be that you
can't see behind you well when backing up.

I assumed you meant the mower falls over tipping you off, because otherwise you have a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics, especially momentum.


I understand physics very well. With a tractor backing up at a constant
speed, in a straight line, there is no momentum issue with regard to falling one way or the other. Newton figured that out 400 years ago.

So like I said, no danger of falling off. Apart from the acceleration/deceleration of the mower. To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning.


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

On Fri, 27 May 2016 13:58:17 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 5/27/2016 8:44 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:48:56 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:16:23 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:20:34 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:57:00 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 18:20:14 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/21/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
When I`m using the riding mower and put it in reverse with the blades engaged the engine stop. It`s a real pain to disengage the blades and then back up. There are not any kids or pets in the area so everything is clear. How can I correct this problem? Thanks for any advice Herb


Please seek out the untrimmed Text Anonymous chapter near year.

It was trimmed enough for me. Seek psychiatric help.

--
Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink and drive?

On Fri, 27 May 2016 01:50:25 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 5/26/2016 4:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2016 11:08 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:


As for your analogy, I'd not expect a book to be entirely on one topic.
Other things would get mentioned.


Really? I have a book on 1950's automobiles and now find out it is
defective. There is no mention of ships or airplanes and not a single
meatloaf recipe. Damn, nothing but cars.

I guess there were better manners back then.
People stayed on topic. I used to have a book
that stayed on topic. Like yours, from the
fifties. A couple generations later, we have
new math, common core, thread drift.

Do you never change subject while talking to someone?

--
Hey diddle diddle the cat took a piddle,
All over the bedside clock.
The little dog laughed to see such fun.
Then died of electric shock.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft? And
regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

--
It is OK to let your mind go blank, but please turn off the sound.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.


People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?




And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.


Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.


Next idiot!

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?

So why is this more likely in reverse than going forwards?

And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.

If the mower is stationary, how does it go over you?

Next idiot!

Win your argument before you pronounce someone an idiot, otherwise you look stupid.

--
We've had a hot, dry summer this year. It was so hot that one of my neighbors said his wife even thawed out.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?

So why is this more likely in reverse than going forwards?


I never said it was, nor was that the issue.



And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.

If the mower is stationary, how does it go over you?


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:22:16 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?

So why is this more likely in reverse than going forwards?

I never said it was, nor was that the issue.

That's what the OP was asking about, the blades cutting out when he reversed the mower.

And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.

If the mower is stationary, how does it go over you?

That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because you can't fall under it while it's moving. You fall off the back when you stop the mower and you continue moving.

--
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:22:16 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?

So why is this more likely in reverse than going forwards?

I never said it was, nor was that the issue.

That's what the OP was asking about, the blades cutting out when he reversed the mower.


No **** Sherlock. Of course that's what he was asking about,
he was seeking a way to bypass the safety so that he could move in reverse
with the blades running. But that has nothing to do with your
insistence that one can't fall of a mower backwards or that the
mower can't have the blades running with the mower not moving, etc.





And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.

If the mower is stationary, how does it go over you?

That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because you can't fall under it while it's moving.

Of course you can silly rabbit.



You fall off the back when you stop the mower and you continue moving.


As all those examples I showed with bar stools and similar, you can
fall of something whether it's moving forward, backward or not moving
at all. Capiche?

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:43:02 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:05 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:22:16 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:43:07 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:40:43 AM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


Falling off a tractor or falling in general does not require the tractor
or object you're involved with to be moving. Only one object needs to be
moving, you. Capiche?

I've already said that. Re-read what I wrote. "To fall backwards while the mower reverses would be when you STOP. This means the blades aren't spinning."

--
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

I read what you wrote and it's just as wrong now as before.
Why does the mower have to be stopped and not backing up when you fall off?
Clearly you can fall off whether it's moving or not. Are you daft?

What makes you fall? You need to be shoved. That can only happen by the mower accelerating forwards or decelerating backwards.

People fall off chairs, stools and similar all the time. A drunk guy
falls off a bar stool, was the stool moving? A person has a dizzy
spell and falls off a chair, was the chair moving?

So why is this more likely in reverse than going forwards?

I never said it was, nor was that the issue.

That's what the OP was asking about, the blades cutting out when he reversed the mower.

No **** Sherlock. Of course that's what he was asking about,
he was seeking a way to bypass the safety so that he could move in reverse
with the blades running. But that has nothing to do with your
insistence that one can't fall of a mower backwards or that the
mower can't have the blades running with the mower not moving, etc.

It's everything to do with it. You only fall off backwards when the mower stops. The mower can't run you over if it's not moving. So if the blades are spinning or not is irrelevant.

And regarding the blades spinning, the whole issue was why some safety folks
thought an interlock to prevent the mower from backing up with the blades
spinning was the whole point.

But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning.

Obviously you don't even know how a riding mower works. The mower can
be stationary, not moving, with the blades spinning.

If the mower is stationary, how does it go over you?

That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because you can't fall under it while it's moving.

Of course you can silly rabbit.

Then you can fall under it while it's going forwards too.

You fall off the back when you stop the mower and you continue moving..

As all those examples I showed with bar stools and similar,

A mower is far easier to balance on than a bar stool. And you tend to be less drunk at the time. Anyone who falls off a mower is a ****ing retard.

you can
fall of something whether it's moving forward, backward or not moving
at all. Capiche?

Please speak English. Using foreign words to sound smart doesn't make you sound smart. Понимаю?

--
If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:


It's everything to do with it. You only fall off backwards when the mower stops.

Once again, that isn't true. I gave you a good example. People fall
off bar stools, don't they? Was the bar moving in reverse?
And a mower is even more problematic than a bar stool. When it's moving
in reverse, you can hit a bump, the other wheel goes into a low spot, etc.
Clearly the mower does not have to be stopped for you to fall off. Idiot.



The mower can't run you over if it's not moving. So if the blades are spinning or not is irrelevant.


No **** Sherlock, that's why the put that interlock there that he
wants to defeat. Capiche?





Then you can fall under it while it's going forwards too.


Now you can't. You'd have to do some real gymnastics to wind up
under the mower deck if you fall forward. Forward you have the steering
wheel and the whole front of the tractor. You have basically three
directions you can fall off, either side and backwards. Falling
backwards, you go directly to the ground, behind the mower. I take
it you've never actually been on one.




You fall off the back when you stop the mower and you continue moving.

As all those examples I showed with bar stools and similar,

A mower is far easier to balance on than a bar stool. And you tend to be less drunk at the time. Anyone who falls off a mower is a ****ing retard.


That's probably true in most cases. But many of these modern safety
interlocks are there to prevent injury to those retards. And as I pointed
out, but again you ignore, people could have a medical event that causes
them to fall off. Pl,enty of people like to mow after a few beers. IDK
if that classifies as retard or not.



you can
fall of something whether it's moving forward, backward or not moving
at all. Capiche?

Please speak English. Using foreign words to sound smart doesn't make you sound smart. Понимаю?


The choice of language doesn't matter when one is conversing with the
village idiot.

On Fri, 27 May 2016 19:25:35 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's everything to do with it. You only fall off backwards when the mower stops.

Once again, that isn't true. I gave you a good example. People fall
off bar stools, don't they? Was the bar moving in reverse?
And a mower is even more problematic than a bar stool. When it's moving
in reverse, you can hit a bump, the other wheel goes into a low spot, etc.
Clearly the mower does not have to be stopped for you to fall off. Idiot.

The only idiot is someone who can't remain seated on a mower.

The mower can't run you over if it's not moving. So if the blades are spinning or not is irrelevant.

No **** Sherlock, that's why the put that interlock there that he
wants to defeat. Capiche?

No, the thing he wants to defeat stops him from cutting while reversing. If he's still on the mower, it should allow cutting.

Then you can fall under it while it's going forwards too.

Now you can't. You'd have to do some real gymnastics to wind up
under the mower deck if you fall forward. Forward you have the steering
wheel and the whole front of the tractor. You have basically three
directions you can fall off, either side and backwards. Falling
backwards, you go directly to the ground, behind the mower. I take
it you've never actually been on one.

Then instead of ****ing about with interlocks, simply make the back impossible to fall off. That'll take care of the ****wits with no sense of balance who need to be removed from the gene pool anyway.

You fall off the back when you stop the mower and you continue moving.

As all those examples I showed with bar stools and similar,

A mower is far easier to balance on than a bar stool. And you tend to be less drunk at the time. Anyone who falls off a mower is a ****ing retard.

That's probably true in most cases. But many of these modern safety
interlocks are there to prevent injury to those retards. And as I pointed
out, but again you ignore, people could have a medical event that causes
them to fall off. Pl,enty of people like to mow after a few beers. IDK
if that classifies as retard or not.

Whatever the reason, it's their fault. There is no sense in restricting what sensible people can do with their mowers just for a few ****wits.

you can
fall of something whether it's moving forward, backward or not moving
at all. Capiche?

Please speak English. Using foreign words to sound smart doesn't make you sound smart. Понимаю?

The choice of language doesn't matter when one is conversing with the
village idiot.

I'm providing logical answers, you're just repeating yourself like a troll.

--
Mary had a little lamb, it walked into a pylon. 10,000 volts went up its arse, and turned its wool to nylon.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K

On Mon, 30 May 2016 19:35:53 +0100, Harry K wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Well if the concern is falling under the blades, you can't do that while holding the button.

If such a button exists, the OP could simply short that button?

--
Australia - 2030 ?????
HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR 2030
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Little India, formerly known as Australia.
White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Australia's third language.
Children from 2 parent heterosexual families bullied in schools for being 'different'. Tolerance urged.
Melbourne schoolgirl expelled for not wearing Burqa: Being a Christian is no excuse says school. Sharia law must be enforced.
After a 10-year, $75.8 billion study: Scientists prove Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights. Victims to be held partly responsible for crime.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters, and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2035 as lethal weapons.

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:42:42 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 19:25:35 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's everything to do with it. You only fall off backwards when the mower stops.

Once again, that isn't true. I gave you a good example. People fall
off bar stools, don't they? Was the bar moving in reverse?
And a mower is even more problematic than a bar stool. When it's moving
in reverse, you can hit a bump, the other wheel goes into a low spot, etc.
Clearly the mower does not have to be stopped for you to fall off. Idiot.

The only idiot is someone who can't remain seated on a mower.


That must be you.



The mower can't run you over if it's not moving. So if the blades are spinning or not is irrelevant.

No **** Sherlock, that's why the put that interlock there that he
wants to defeat. Capiche?

No, the thing he wants to defeat stops him from cutting while reversing. If he's still on the mower, it should allow cutting.


No what? You said that the mower can't run you over if it's not moving,
so whether the blades are spinning or not doesn't matter. The whole
point was that he wants to DEFEAT the INTERLOCK so that the blades will
spin while it's moving backwards. So, if he does that and someone falls
off backwards it does matter if the blades are spinning or not. Capiche?





Then instead of ****ing about with interlocks, simply make the back impossible to fall off. That'll take care of the ****wits with no sense of balance who need to be removed from the gene pool anyway.


You think maybe he figured it's easier to defeat the interlock than do
that? IDK what he thinks, you can ask him, but it's irrelevant.





Whatever the reason, it's their fault. There is no sense in restricting what sensible people can do with their mowers just for a few ****wits.


You can take that up with the mower safety folks. It doesn't change
physics and the fact that you can fall off a mower without regard to
which direction it's moving or even if it's moving at all.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:


Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K

IDK, what makes you think that feature is in all riding mowers? When
you push it does it then keep them running without you having to
continue pushing on it?

On Mon, 30 May 2016 20:05:45 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:42:42 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 19:25:35 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:

It's everything to do with it. You only fall off backwards when the mower stops.

Once again, that isn't true. I gave you a good example. People fall
off bar stools, don't they? Was the bar moving in reverse?
And a mower is even more problematic than a bar stool. When it's moving
in reverse, you can hit a bump, the other wheel goes into a low spot, etc.
Clearly the mower does not have to be stopped for you to fall off. Idiot.

The only idiot is someone who can't remain seated on a mower.

That must be you.

I don't fall off mowers.

The mower can't run you over if it's not moving. So if the blades are spinning or not is irrelevant.

No **** Sherlock, that's why the put that interlock there that he
wants to defeat. Capiche?

No, the thing he wants to defeat stops him from cutting while reversing. If he's still on the mower, it should allow cutting.

No what? You said that the mower can't run you over if it's not moving,
so whether the blades are spinning or not doesn't matter. The whole
point was that he wants to DEFEAT the INTERLOCK so that the blades will
spin while it's moving backwards. So, if he does that and someone falls
off backwards it does matter if the blades are spinning or not. Capiche?

I'm not replying to an Italian.

Then instead of ****ing about with interlocks, simply make the back impossible to fall off. That'll take care of the ****wits with no sense of balance who need to be removed from the gene pool anyway.

You think maybe he figured it's easier to defeat the interlock than do
that? IDK what he thinks, you can ask him, but it's irrelevant.

I'm talking about mower design, do keep up at the back.

Whatever the reason, it's their fault. There is no sense in restricting what sensible people can do with their mowers just for a few ****wits.

You can take that up with the mower safety folks. It doesn't change
physics and the fact that you can fall off a mower without regard to
which direction it's moving or even if it's moving at all.

No sensible person would fall off the mower.

--
Backup not found. A)bort, R)etry or P)anic?

On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

JAS

--
You either teach people to treat you with dignity and respect, or
you don't. This means you are partly responsible for the mistreatment
that you get at the hands of someone else.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 10:06:04 AM UTC-4, JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS

That's how my son's Craftsman was, but that was back in the mid 2000's. I
have no idea if they still have that feature.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

--
What does Michael Jackson like about twenty-eight year olds?
The fact that there are twenty of them.

On 31/05/2016 16:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The
guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He
wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

I assume he means stopping the mower blades turning whilst leaving the
engine running.

--
Bod

On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:47:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 31/05/2016 16:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The
guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He
wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

I assume he means stopping the mower blades turning whilst leaving the
engine running.

So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it? Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms? Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet? It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.

--
For the really paranoid who want to destroy data there's nothing like taking the lid off the disk drive and rearranging the sectors with a hammer.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:47:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 31/05/2016 16:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The
guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He
wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

I assume he means stopping the mower blades turning whilst leaving the
engine running.

So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it? Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms? Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet? It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.

Actually, I like that safety feature. When I'm mowing along my ditch,
I know that when the engine starts to stall I'd better adjust my
trajectory (or the position of my butt on the seat) or some other factor.

The first thing when we got the mower, my husband disabled the "can't
mow in reverse" interlock. Chipmunks beware!

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 31 May 2016 17:16:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it?
Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms?
Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet?
It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.


On my rider circa 1990 the seat switch is electrical
not a pressure switch which only stops the engine if
the blades are engaged - an important and perfectly simple and
logical safety feature - and one that has been common since
long before 1990, I suspect ...
There is no interlock with the motion conrol - I can mow in forward
or reverse, with no over-ride - I fail to see the logic in the
reverse interlock ...
John T.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 20:06:07 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2016 17:16:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it?
Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms?
Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet?
It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.


On my rider circa 1990 the seat switch is electrical
not a pressure switch which only stops the engine if
the blades are engaged - an important and perfectly simple and
logical safety feature

For people stupid enough to get off the mower without stopping it. Why do you care for stupid people?

First thing I do when I get a tool is remove all safety switches, that way I'm in control of the tool, not the safety conscious designer.

- and one that has been common since
long before 1990, I suspect ...
There is no interlock with the motion conrol - I can mow in forward
or reverse, with no over-ride - I fail to see the logic in the
reverse interlock ...
John T.

--
Steve Ryder covering the US Masters: "Ballesteros felt much better today after a 69 yesterday."

On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:59:15 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:47:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 31/05/2016 16:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The
guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He
wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

I assume he means stopping the mower blades turning whilst leaving the
engine running.

So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it? Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms? Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet? It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.

Actually, I like that safety feature. When I'm mowing along my ditch,
I know that when the engine starts to stall I'd better adjust my
trajectory (or the position of my butt on the seat) or some other factor.

Huh?

The first thing when we got the mower, my husband disabled the "can't
mow in reverse" interlock. Chipmunks beware!

Have you ever seen the film "Caddy Shack"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080487/

--
CO2 emissions aren't a problem. CO2 is supposed to be there. It feeds plants for ****s sake! If greenies want plants to be healthy, we need MORE CO2! They pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better!

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:08:03 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:


Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done away with that?

Harry K

IDK, what makes you think that feature is in all riding mowers? When
you push it does it then keep them running without you having to
continue pushing on it?

I "assuimed" (yes I know) dthat all mowers had some method of keepingthe blades turning. Mine is a JD.

Nope, push once and let go while pusshing on the reverse pedal.

I don't know how it would work if one needs to, or has and urge to, fall off the mower.

Harry K

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:35:19 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:59:15 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:47:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 31/05/2016 16:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:10:59 +0100, JAS wrote:

JAS wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:04:43 +0100, trader_4
wrote:


snippage


That isn't what you said, nor what I responded to. This is what you
said:

"But if it's stopped, they aren't spinning."

Which of course is wrong. You really are the village idiot. The
guy's
mower has an interlock to prevent it from going backwards with the
blades spinning. If you try to do that, it kills the engine. He
wants
to override it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay, I have read many of he posts, still confused. Why doesn't he
just push the dash button? Has something changed in mower safety
devices? I have a fairly new rider mower that has a button on thie
dash to push - keeps blades running when in reverse. Have they done
away with that?

Harry K
Vast majority of riders do not have that button in North America.
Some shut off the engine. Some shut off the blade.

My Sears Craftsman in Nebraska has the feature on the key switch. 1st
position-off 2nd position- mow in reverse 3rd position-Start. You start
the mower and then turn the key back to number 2 position and you can
mow in reverse without the motor shutting down.

JAS
Also to add to my previous post you have to set the park brake and shut
off the mower if you want to get off the rider with the engine running.

"Shut off the mower" and "with the engine running". What?!

I assume he means stopping the mower blades turning whilst leaving the
engine running.

So the seat has a pressure switch and the engine cuts out if you get off it? Bloody hell, why so many safety mechanisms? Can't we just let incapable people die off and get off our planet? It's not a bloody jumbo jet, it's not rocket science to drive a mower.

Actually, I like that safety feature. When I'm mowing along my ditch,
I know that when the engine starts to stall I'd better adjust my
trajectory (or the position of my butt on the seat) or some other factor.