On Mon, 10 May 2021 19:48:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/05/2021 19:09, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:05:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:35, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2021 21:34:31 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Tue, 04 May 2021 03:01:29 +0100, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/03/2021 10:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Is it to warn you? Even my toilet cistern can slow down smoothly.

On cars? Yes. Cutting the engine abruptly when you hit the red line
wouldn't be good so they simulate ignition breakup to give you a
hint.

But at that point you've already gone over the peak of the power
curve.
I'd just make it drop the curve more quickly so it can never go too
fast.

Not possible to do that and still get the best performance.

You're getting **** all performance if you've gone over the power curve
anyway.

That depends entirely on how the engine is set up. A turbocharged angine
for racing can easily be delivering nearly flat torque all the way to
disitegration and will develop full power on the limiters edge

I've never seen a power curve like that.

Its not my fault you are a thick ignorant ****, is it?

Or someone who tends to use older cars.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

OK what do they use then, All I remember from my brief experience
trying to dim leds was that the most successful way of doing that was
by duty cycle, ie on to off times with them driven by some kind of
oscillator with variable mark space ratios. However it is obvious
that even the briefest of ons and the longest offs tends to still be
visible in most cases, and not terribly accurate if many leds are
used as the load, there being a spread of linearity in any given
number.

PWM is the cheapest way as it needs no other component.

For a small improvement in efficiency then a constant current source
would be best but obviously costs more.

Doesnt necessarily cost anything more at all with leds. Same price as
voltage regulators.

But if I buy a "dimmable LED" lightbulb, I can dim it with a dimmer
that's on the wall, at 240V AC. Is there electronics inside the bulb
sensing the PWM from the dimmer and using that to control its internal
current limiter?

I was talking about led bulbs that dim without a dimmer thats on the
wall. The dimmer is internal and just has a current regulator instead of
a voltage regulator that costs the same. No PWM involved.

And now you must talk of the other kind.

Nope, because dimmers on the wall are dinosaur technology. Much
better to have the dimmer in the bulb itself so it can be automatically
controlled as a scene etc so that when you indicate that you are
watching TV it sets the lights to the level that you have decided is
best for that, turns the TV on and plays what you have indicated
you want to watch when you select what you want to watch.

Stupid to have to fart around adjusting the lights with the dimmer
on the wall etc.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 10:39:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On 19/05/21 7:40 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 10:39:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather


Peeler's poorly developed eyes are buried under the skin, and there is a
single nostril at the end of his snout.

On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:26:35 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
little cyclist, blabbered again:



Peeler's poorly developed eyes are buried under the skin, and there is a
single nostril at the end of his snout.

The dumbest gay little cyclist of the UK is demonstrating his exceptional
STUPIDITY again! LOL

On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the rev limiter invented?

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On 19/05/21 9:36 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:26:35 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
little cyclist, blabbered again:



Peeler's poorly developed eyes are buried under the skin, and there is a
single nostril at the end of his snout.

The dumbest gay little cyclist of the UK is demonstrating his exceptional
STUPIDITY again! LOL

Peeler lives on soft bottoms, in burrows, and habitually lies buried
except for the tip of his head.

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:00:12 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
little cyclist, blabbered again:


The dumbest gay little cyclist of the UK is demonstrating his exceptional
STUPIDITY again! LOL

Peeler lives on soft bottoms, in burrows, and habitually lies buried
except for the tip of his head.

And again: The UK's dumbest gay little cyclist demonstrated his exceptional
STUPIDITY once more! LOL

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.Â* I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering?Â* What year was the rev
limiter invented?


I think about 1760

So what?


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again:


I think

No, you don't! You feed a troll, you troll-feeding senile asshole!

On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later vintage?

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:22:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather


--
Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rodent Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rodent: "Then **** the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try ****ing them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try ****ing them. Try it and see."

Message-ID:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.Â* I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering?Â* What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?


--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again:


They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

He doesn't think. He TROLLS. Just like you don't think but feed the troll,
you natural idiot!

On 21/05/21 7:50 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again:


They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

He doesn't think. He TROLLS. Just like you don't think but feed the troll,
you natural idiot!

Peeler's diet includes marine invertebrates and dead or crippled fishes.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 21:06:04 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay little
masochist, blabbered again:


He doesn't think. He TROLLS. Just like you don't think but feed the troll,
you natural idiot!

Peeler's diet includes marine invertebrates and dead or crippled fishes.

Yeah, very "impressive" ...your idiocy that is, you dumb gay little cyclist!
LOL

On 21/05/2021 10:06, Peter Keller wrote:
On 21/05/21 7:50 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again:


They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

He doesn't think. He TROLLS. Just like you don't think but feed the troll,
you natural idiot!

Peeler's diet includes marine invertebrates and dead or crippled fishes.

Lol.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.* I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering?* What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?
Kettering ignition tended to have a "rev limiter" built in - it was
called point float. Electronic ignitions do not have that "feature"
Overhead valve engines also terded to suffer from "valve float" at
high speeds - which most overhead cam engines are also relatively
imune to.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

The rev limiter, yes. You make one mistake once in the life of the car and you lose the engine.

On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:22:39 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

I noticed, but they tend to be a fraction of the price, which is why I've had 4 of them. £500 for a car with only 45K on the clock? Unheard of for anything decent.

On 21/05/21 9:27 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 21:06:04 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay little
masochist, blabbered again:


He doesn't think. He TROLLS. Just like you don't think but feed the troll,
you natural idiot!

Peeler's diet includes marine invertebrates and dead or crippled fishes.

Yeah, very "impressive" ...your idiocy that is, you dumb gay little cyclist!
LOL

Sometimes, to the detriment of fishermen, Peeler attacks fish caught on
lines or in nets, boring his way into the bodies and eating the fish
from the inside.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:22:39 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.
I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the
rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

I noticed, but they tend to be a fraction of the price,

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

which is why I've had 4 of them. £500 for a car with only 45K on the
clock?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

Unheard of for anything decent.

Only the stupid keep buying such ****ed cars.

On Sat, 22 May 2021 14:41:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID:

On Sat, 22 May 2021 16:19:29 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay little
masochist, blabbered again:


Peeler's diet includes marine invertebrates and dead or crippled fishes.

Yeah, very "impressive" ...your idiocy that is, you dumb gay little cyclist!
LOL

Sometimes, to the detriment of fishermen, Peeler attacks fish caught on
lines or in nets, boring his way into the bodies and eating the fish
from the inside.

LOL!!!

On 21/05/2021 19:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in
1993.Â* I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering?Â* What year was
the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

The rev limiter, yes.Â* You make one mistake once in the life of the car
and you lose the engine.

I guess then that citroen should have added flotation devices and a
rudder to the chap I knew who drove into a flood and destroyed his engine

If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:14:23 +0100, The Natural Idiot, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered yet again:


I guess then that citroen should have added flotation devices and a
rudder to the chap I knew who drove into a flood and destroyed his engine

If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

If you want the troll to come back for alwaysmore, just keep feeding him in
your idiotic senile manner, you NATURAL IDIOT! BG

On 05/22/2021 08:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

On Sat, 22 May 2021 10:43:17 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

Let me guess, you were talking to the poor driver all the time, senile
gossip! LMAO

On 22/05/2021 17:43, rbowman wrote:
On 05/22/2021 08:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

But I wasn't talking to you
I was talking to Stupid****„¢.
Anyone is safer behind the wheel than he is.

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On Sat, 22 May 2021 05:41:27 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:22:39 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.
I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the
rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

I noticed, but they tend to be a fraction of the price,

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

which is why I've had 4 of them. £500 for a car with only 45K on the
clock?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

Unheard of for anything decent.

Only the stupid keep buying such ****ed cars.

It probably saves me money (on the purchase cost).

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 May 2021 05:41:27 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 May 2021 21:22:39 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.
I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was the
rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much
later
vintage?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

I noticed, but they tend to be a fraction of the price,

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

which is why I've had 4 of them. £500 for a car with only 45K on the
clock?

Because the frogs are hopeless at designing cars.

Unheard of for anything decent.

Only the stupid keep buying such ****ed cars.

It probably saves me money (on the purchase cost).

Bull**** it does when they last such a short time.

On Mon, 24 May 2021 07:58:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rodent Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rodent: "Then **** the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try ****ing them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try ****ing them. Try it and see."

Message-ID:

On 24/05/21 10:29 am, Peeler wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 07:58:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather


However, there is some feeling that Peeler is actually a member of a sea
dwelling species that does not readily fit into the usually accepted
definition of fish. Part of the marine class myxini and with a
scientific designation of hyperotreti, Peeler is usually considered to
be one of the less desirable forms of ocean life.

On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:51:22 +1200, Peter Keller, the dumb gay little
masochist, blabbered again:

On 24/05/21 10:29 am, Peeler wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 07:58:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather


However, there is some feeling that Peeler is actually a member of a sea
dwelling species that does not readily fit into the usually accepted
definition of fish. Part of the marine class myxini and with a
scientific designation of hyperotreti, Peeler is usually considered to
be one of the less desirable forms of ocean life.

Oh, lookie, the demented gay little cyclist is trying to stand up for the
two filthiest cretins infesting these groups! Guess what will come of your
"support" for them, my newest punching bag! LOL

On Fri, 21 May 2021 11:02:34 -0400, Clare Snyder posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in 1993.* I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering?* What year was the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?
Kettering ignition tended to have a "rev limiter" built in - it was
called point float. Electronic ignitions do not have that "feature"
Overhead valve engines also terded to suffer from "valve float" at
high speeds - which most overhead cam engines are also relatively
imune to.

Chitty, chitty, bang, bang?

--
Tekkie

On Sat, 22 May 2021 10:43:17 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 05/22/2021 08:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

Be glad you didn't have any appendages outside the vehicles.

--
Tekkie

On Sat, 22 May 2021 15:14:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/05/2021 19:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 06:10:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/05/2021 19:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 15:58:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:26:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/05/2021 18:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2021 21:06:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/05/2021 18:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I did not have a rev limiter on my Renault Espace built in
1993. I
broke the engine badly.

That shows what a stupid **** you are then

Why would anyone expect a car from 1993 not to have a limiter?

Because they were a stupid ****?

How am I stupid for expecting better engineering? What year was
the rev
limiter invented?

I think about 1760

So what?

So why the **** did Renault not include it in their car of a much later
vintage?

They didn't include flint tools or a leather saddle either.

Do you think that was a serious omission?

The rev limiter, yes. You make one mistake once in the life of the car
and you lose the engine.

I guess then that citroen should have added flotation devices and a
rudder to the chap I knew who drove into a flood and destroyed his engine

If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

You're not a fool if you drive through a ford and don't realise it's quite that deep. I did so recently, the fencing at the edges made it look like it was a foot deep. It was 3 feet deep. When I realised, I saw the bow wave in front of me and continued at the speed to keep it there. The air intake was then not under three feet of water. Luckily there was no mud to get stuck in.

All cars should have the air intake on the roof.

On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:57:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/05/2021 17:43, rbowman wrote:
On 05/22/2021 08:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

But I wasn't talking to you
I was talking to Stupid****„¢.
Anyone is safer behind the wheel than he is.

A safe life is a boring life.

On 05/24/2021 12:28 PM, Tekkie� wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2021 10:43:17 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 05/22/2021 08:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you want foolproof transport dont sit behind the steering wheel. Get
someone else to do it

The two roll-over wrecks I've been in had someone else behind the wheel,
so no thanks.

Be glad you didn't have any appendages outside the vehicles.


Fortunately both were late in the year. One was on a wet leaf covered
road. I'd remarked moments before we were going down the road backwards
at 70 mph, 'You know, wet leaves are as bad as ice.' as a polite way of
saying slow the **** down. Alfa Romeos don't hold up well when going end
over end. Even better, it was his wife's car.

I had a cut over my eye so we wound up in the ER. As I lay there I heard
a conversation 'I don't know if we can save the eye.' Luckily it was
somebody else's eye in question. The doc who sewed me up spoke enough
English to say he wasn't very good at suturing but a plastic surgeon
would be able to fix it all up. Great.

That wasn't as bad as the Navy corpsman who threw away the novocaine in
the suture kit. 'If I use that your facial muscles will sag and there
might be a scar.'

I still have both sets. They add to my friendly appearance.