From: Steve Firth on 18 Jul 2010 18:10 Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:12:25 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) > wrote: [snip] > > > >Well no it's not totally wrong > > Yes it was. > > As you would well know, if you knew anything whatsoever about driving > (or about basic physics for that matter). Get your head out of your butt Heney.
From: Steve Firth on 18 Jul 2010 18:10 Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:25:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) > wrote: > > >Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: > > > >> she was passing a horse TRAILER or box > > > >No, writing TRAILER in capitals still doesn't change the origial post > >which referred to a carriage. > > And which in another part of the post referred to a trailer. > > It's obvious if you read the whole OP that she was actually referring > to a horse trailer, not a horse and carriage. No it's not.
From: Mike Ross on 18 Jul 2010 18:24 On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:10:06 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:25:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >> >Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: >> > >> >> she was passing a horse TRAILER or box >> > >> >No, writing TRAILER in capitals still doesn't change the origial post >> >which referred to a carriage. >> >> And which in another part of the post referred to a trailer. >> >> It's obvious if you read the whole OP that she was actually referring >> to a horse trailer, not a horse and carriage. > >No it's not. At best, it's ambiguous. At worst, it's *irrelevant*; we've moved on from discussing the specific to the general. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Mike Ross on 18 Jul 2010 18:27 On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:25:35 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote: > >> she was passing a horse TRAILER or box > >No, writing TRAILER in capitals still doesn't change the origial post >which referred to a carriage. It also referred to a TRAILER: "...and didn't expect my spot behind the horse trailer to be closed up...". Saying the post referred to a carriage doesn't change the fact that it clearly referred to a TRAILER. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Mike Ross on 18 Jul 2010 18:35
<snips> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:25:55 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson" ><steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote: > >>Dave Head wrote: >>> Yes, a following car blocking the area behind the horsetrailer is >>> following too close. At 20 mph, that's 58 ft following distance for >>> the recommended 2 seconds following distance, and should be >>> available to pull into. >> >>Was this the very same gap the op pulled out of , whilst its stupid >>to drive so close its not an offence > >It is in Virginia - its called tailgating. It can be charged as >reckless driving and can get you up to a year in jail. I've seen drivers I would have liked to see get that. It could certainly be charged as careless driving, and possibly as dangerous driving, in the UK too. >>> Again, do you have a muffler problem? The critter isn't going to >>> know if you have the throttle wide open otherwise, and passing is a >>> full throttle proposition on a 2 lane road. >>> >>No i dont , however high revving engines emit far more noise , > >You have a muffler problem. My WRX under full throttle is still >quiet. I can't hear it well enough to know when to shift. I just >can't hear it. Have to use the tach. Heh. My tuned STi is a little noisy; I admit it. But it's funny, it depends on the situation. I never thought it was *that* noisy, until I drove it through the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel last year with the windows open and it was bloody deafening, sounded like an F1 car at half-chat! Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |