From: Francis Burton on 4 Mar 2010 12:24
In article <otlvo59i512shodq6bd1o41s7146se7oso(a)4ax.com>,
Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote:
>finally get my license this summer), and amateur gas turbine engineer. Currently
>building a gas turbine / electric hybrid car.
>Out-of-date turbine stuff is here: http://www.corestore.org/turbine.htm
I assume you don't use the BMW/MAN ground power unit to run the
PDP11 computer(s)! :-) (I recognized the corner of the RK05 disk
From: NM on 4 Mar 2010 12:31
On 4 Mar, 16:34, Alex Potter <spam...(a)ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:29:59 +0000, Ret. wrote:
> > Indeed, but hacking the other person's head off in order to avoid
> > confrontation is a bit OTT don't you think?
> Oh, I don't know...
> OTOH, unless and until we see the video of the incident, we have no way
> of knowing what went on.
> I do know that whenever I've been close to moving aircraft propellers 
> I've taken damn good care to stay out of range.
>  Was a glider pilot until the money ran out.
You can't be too careful, I swung the prop to start a light aircraft,
when it fired I felt the draft of the next blade on the back of my
hand as I withdrew it, it's faster than you can react and deadly.
From: NM on 4 Mar 2010 12:41
On 4 Mar, 16:55, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
> <damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:46:10 -0000, "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >><damduck-...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> But in your description below aren't you just overcooking the status
> >>> of Long Marston, the RAF moved out over 50 years ago it was hardly a V
> >>> bomber base.
> >>It was indeed part of Bomber Command... Victors I think.
> > Bomber command yes, but the RAF left it in 1954, The first V bomber
> > base was Gaydon in Warwickshire in 1954 so I stand by my statement
> > that Long Marston was not a V bomber base. Victors became operational
> > in 1957.
> OK it was just a guess. I used to live under that flight path for
> Waddington... Vulcans....lovely aircraft:)
Lincolns I suppose?
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 12:45
Steve Walker wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety.
> That's an absurd claim - if safety was the primary issue they wouldn't be
> conducting their arrogant traffic-disrupting promenades at all.
Look it's been explained to you over & over again by Doug & you still
don't get it.
They are committing an illegal act to make themselves safe from the
danger they put themselves in by acting in an inconsiderate & illegal
manner, which they do to make themselves safe from the danger .....
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 12:46
Steve Walker wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 3 Mar, 11:17, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote:
>>> On 3 Mar, 08:56, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>>>> I was just reading about a USA CMer who was run over, had is ankle
>>>> broken and who then smashed his bike into the windscreen of his
>>>> assailant. Naturally, it was the cyclist who was charged with an
>>>> offence and not the driver, by the car-centric law enforcers, as
>>> Good, sounds like he deserved it, I hope the motorist was also
>>> compensated for his damage.
>>> What is so hard to understand? If you cause deliberate congestion you
>>> will get a reaction, remedy is so simple a child (but not apparantly a
>>> lycra loon) could understand, don't do it and if you do accept the
>> The consequences are a driver, who has superior force by using a car
>> as a weapon, takes the law into his own hands by attacking a cyclist
>> by ramming. And you and other motorists here are trying to pretend
>> this was a legal act because the cyclist was deliberately corking?
> You are suddenly changing the story to make the initial collision into a
> deliberate assault by the driver (rather than an accident). If there is
> evidence of that then of course the driver should be prosecuted.
Well he has already lied by telling us the cyclists were not moving even
though the video was shot by a moving cyclist.