On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>> out of existence.
>>>
>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>
>> **They will be very soon.
>
> On what basis?
>  > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>
> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because the
> majority of buyers don't *want* them.

Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
use them.

On 13/07/2023 6:59 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 7:51 am, Noddy wrote:

>>>
>>> Those adults. If you SERIOUSLY imagine that the 9 years of COALition
>>> government was a good government, culminating in the disaster that
>>> was the Morrison debacle then you have rocks in your head.
>>
>> I never said that Trevor.
>
> **And I explained, in exquisite detail,

ROTFL :)

why the last 9 years of
> COALition fuck-ups has ended and we now have adults in charge. The
> present government is demonstrably preferable to the idiots who were in
> charge for the prior 9 years.

Still wondering what Albo and his crew have done to reverse the
country's fortunes ....

>  That's *your* fantasy. What I'm saying to you
>> is that Albanese has been in a year now, and despite promising the
>> world has delivered *nothing* of substance.
>
> **BULLSHIT.
>
> * The government has already enacted the legislation for a Federal ICAC.
> Something the COALition avoided doing for YEARS.

Thank fuck for that. I'm sure that'll be appreciated by the average
supermarket shopper struggling to pay their grocery bill.

> * The government has repaired relations with China.

Hate to burst your bubble here Trev, but it was *China* who repaired
relations with us. Not the other way around. Just like it was China who
cracked the shits with us in the first place for no reason other than
they wanted to.

> That's two. There's probably lots more.

Probably? Don't you know?

>
>  Power prices are going up 30% very
>> soon. Guess what he said he would do once he became Prime Minister?
>
> **Albo stated, in no uncertain terms, that power prices would rise by
> around 30% and that the rise was locked in and there was nothing the
> government could do.

Um, no he didn't. Albo went to the polls promising a reduction in
household power bills of 250 bucks.

That ain't happening.

> Remind me: Who sold off electricity assets around the nation, which has
> led to these price rises?

The state Liberals did, after various state Labor governments
demonstrated their ineptitude when it came to managing our finances and
almost sent each state broke.

See if you can name the Labor governments who objected to the idea, *or*
tried to reverse it?

>>   > The COALition has given this nation the two worst PMs in our
>> entire history - Abbott (hey
>>> let's bring back Knighthoods and give one to Prince Philip) and
>>> Morrison.
>>
>> There is absolutely no question that the *WORST* Prime Minister this
>> country has ever had, and by a very long way, was Julia Gillard.
>
> **Apart from your hatred of women, explain PRECISELY what Gillard did
> wrong.

Hatred of women? Where do you get *that* bullshit from? :)

As for Gillard, what she did wrong was everything. She had zero
integrity which she proved from the very outset when she prostituted
herself by going back on her word to never introduce a carbon tax, but
more importantly her management of the economy was bordering on
criminally negligent.

This was the woman who as Prime Minister made public announcements by
way of TV commercials where she claimed that "Balancing the budget in
these times of economic prosperity was the responsible thing to do", yet
in 11 budgets that she and her Labor buddies were responsible for they
failed to do it once.

How about you take a crack at explaining what you think she did that
made her great?

>  Abbott
>> was/is a complete fucking moron, but Gillard made him look like a
>> Rhodes Scholar.
>
> **You can't be serious.

Deadly. Abbott was a fucktard of biblical proportions, but he was *far*
more palatable than Gillard ever was.

>
>  Inrteresting too that the public generally thought the same
>> thing, which is why he became Prime Minister.
>
> **Not for long. He lost his own seat, which was an incredibly safe
> Liberal seat. That's how popular Abbott was(n't).

John Howard lost his seat too. So what? The point, which you seem to
want to gloss over, is that no matter how much of an imbecile you think
Abbott was, he *still* beat your illustrious Ranga :)

> Abbott was and is a complete nong. Abbott was a pretty good opposition leader and a lousy PM.

Abbott was a lightning rod. He was given the leadership position after
the fiasco of Turnbull in the hope that he would weather the damage and
they could eventually elect a real leader and move on down the track. I
don't think anyone ever realistically believed he would ever lead the
party to the polls and win.

But he did, and while that was a humiliating defeat for Labor, the
result was a problem they had created for themselves.

>> Imagine the Labor party having *such* a low confidence vote amongst
>> the electorate that the people would rather have some imbecile like
>> Tony Abbott as Prime Minister rather than Gillard or Rudd :)
>
> **What the great unwashed think about a PM, is not necessarily accurate,
> or sane.

Oh, right. So your opinion about Gillard is a load of irrational
bullshit then.

Gotcha :)

> I'm going to tell you about the best PM we never had. John
> Hewson. Hewson would have made a great PM. Trouble was, he was up
> against a brilliant tactician, but an average PM. Hewson was
> eviscerated, after he made a small error in one interview.

A small error? He made himself look like a complete bumbling idiot who
had no idea what he was talking about. Talk about the ultimate case of
losing the unlosable election. He made a complete pigs breakfast of the
most important issue the electorate in this country had faced in
decades, and he had no one to blame but himself.

I'll bet the poor bastard can't look at a birthday cake to this very day :)

>>> Ablo and his lot are far from perfect, but they are a whole lot
>>> better than the useless bunch that preceded them.
>>
>> Really? Happy about the "Voice" vote, are you?
>
> **I'm voting 'YES' for two reasons:

This should be good :)

> * Abos have had a pretty rough trot for the last couple of hundred
> years. It was their country and my forebears pinched it from them. They
> deserve a say in THEIR future.

And how does the "Voice" do that for them?

> * Tony Abbott, Lydia Thorpe and Peter Dutton are advising a 'NO' vote.
> Those three are well known for making colossally bad decisions.

There are *many* people advocating a "No" vote, including a whole heap
of aboriginals who think the idea is an unworkable nonsense.

>> For fuck's sake....
>
> **Well, you may think that Dutton, Thorpe and Abbott are smart people
> and know what's best, but that says more about you than anything else.

No, I don't think they're smart people, and your willingness to make
such ridiculous assumptions make you look anything *but* smart yourself.

But here's the rub:

The Voice has no objectives. It has not been fully explained in terms of
what it's been created to achieve or how it will go about achieving it.
There is nothing that has been mentioned thus far that cannot be
achieved *without* needing a change to the constitution or that doesn't
exist already, and we most certainly do *not* need to change our
constitution to "recognise" a particular group of people who are already
recognised all over the world.

I'm happy to vote in favour of anything that brings about a greater
good, but this is little more than tokenistic bullshit for the sake of
it. Aboriginals are Australians who are *already* covered by our
constitution, and making particular allowances for specific groups is
not inclusive. It's *devisive*.

Still, if you want to vote in favour then be my guest, but as far as I'm
concerned anyone who would willingly vote for any proposal where the
government says "don't worry, we'll work the details out later" has got
fucking shit for brains.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/7/2023 6:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 5:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 3:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 3:19 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 13/7/2023 1:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They would have been better off building a Nuclear power station.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Financially yes but would the SA Govt have survived the backlash
>>>> from the greenies.
>>>
>>> Probably. The greenies are a vocal minority. I would be more worried
>>> about the normal people if I was a SA politician.
>>>
>>>
>> It's not just the Greens, opposition to nuclear is more widespread
>> than that.
>
> It certainly has been in the past, but people seem to be mellowing. Look
> at the nuclear submarine deal we've recently signed with the British and
> Americans for example. 20 years ago if anyone suggested adding nuclear
> powered vessels to our Navy's fleet there would have been uproar across
> the nation, but when the deal was announced recently hardly anyone said
> a word against the idea.
>
> Obviously that's not quite the same thing as building a nuclear power
> plant, but the overwhelming objection to anything nuclear has mellowed
> nonetheless. I expect there would still be a reasonable objection to
> nuclear power generation today, but nothing like what we would have seen
> years ago.
>
>  > The other thing is that nuclear power stations are incredibly
>> expensive, even in the US plans to build more have been abandoned on
>> cost grounds, although there are some new designs for small units that
>> may be more cost effective.
>
> Unfortunately they *are* expensive, and also the construction time is
> horrendous compared to something like a solar array which can be up and
> running for around half the price for the same generating power and in
> around a 5th of the time. However a nuclear power plant has one
> overwhelming advantage compared to every form of renewable power
> generation you'd care to name, and that is that they're capable of
> generating power 24 hours a day every day of the year *regardless* of
> the amount of sun, rain, cloud, wind or what have you.
>
> They are, in effect, the *only* truly 100% reliable means of power
> generation that isn't burning coal and spewing emissions into the
> atmosphere.
>
>> There remains though the problem of what you do with the waste other
>> than kicking it on down to your decedents.
>
> You bury it. There is enough uninhabitable land in this country to
> safely bury the next 10 thousand years worth of spent fuel, and enough
> Uranium to generate the next ten thousand years worth of power. Of all
> the countries in the world we are probably the most ideally suited to
> take advantage of nuclear energy given that we have thousands of miles
> of uninhabited coastline, are completely self sufficient in Uranium and
> have more than enough space to safely dispose of the waste.
>
> The only thing we lack is the desire to do so.
>
>
>
I wouldn't say no to nuclear power but I can't see the attitude of the
public or the Govt changing anytime soon.

--
Daryl

On 13/7/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated out
>>> of existence.
>>
>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>
> **They will be very soon.

ROTFL.
Please define "soon"?

Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
> find a car fitted with one right now.
>
Is it, hang on a minute I just found one in my garage so not that hard
to find:-)
Do you mean new cars, if so there is still plenty about if you want one,
just go to a Subaru dealer, we were at a Subaru dealer about a month ago
and they had quite a few manual cars for sale.
Mate is in the UK at the moment, I spoke to him 3 hours ago and the car
he rented is a manual as are an awful lot of small cars in the UK,
manuals are getting rarer in Australia but not in other countries.

--
Daryl

On 13/7/2023 7:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>> out of existence.
>>>
>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>
>> **They will be very soon. Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>
> Hard to find OK, but illegal?

Not even hard to find especially if you look at small or sports cars.

--
Daryl

On 13/7/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>
>>> **They will be very soon.
>>
>> On what basis?
>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>
>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because the
>> majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>
> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
> use them.
>

LOL, sad but true.

--
Daryl

On 13/7/2023 6:59 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 7:51 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 5:48 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2023 5:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2023 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop
>>>>>>> Solar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do they?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Sure do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal
>>>>>> daytime hours charge their cars?
>>>>>
>>>>> **I realise that the big city is different to Bumfuck Vic. Here in
>>>>> the big city most people use public transport to get to work, or
>>>>> they work from home. Sure, there are a lot of people who drive, but
>>>>> most don't.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get your numbers from, Trev? :)
>>>>
>>>>>> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car
>>>>>> let alone a very expensive EV.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Most people need a car, some of the time. For me, a BEV would
>>>>> work just fine, most of the time. I work from home, but I do go out
>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> That's nice, but if your car use is as infrequent as you say, how
>>>> would an EV benefit you?
>>>>
>>>>>> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night
>>>>>> that was charged by solar during the day but to do that they would
>>>>>> need a very large solar system and a very large expensive battery,
>>>>>> a system big enough to both charge a battery and provide enough
>>>>>> power to reduce electricity bills is not cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Your thinking arse about:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/can-you-use-an-electric-vehicle-to-power-your-home-bi-directional-charging/
>>>>>
>>>>> Double the value of your BEV.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>
>>>> I can just imagine the kid staying up all night running the car
>>>> battery flat playing on his Xbox :)
>>>>
>>>>>> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to
>>>>>> be installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> **'Not uncommon' is not equivalent to 'common'. However, I don't
>>>>> know what kinds of costs are involved, as I haven't researched such
>>>>> things recently. Fortunately, costs are headed only one way - DOWN.
>>>>> Still you could use your BEV to run your home.
>>>>
>>>> Could you? Really? How many kW a day does your home use, Trev?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whilst I'm in favor of solar and other renewables they are coming
>>>>>> at a cost, feed in tariffs are going down and they say its because
>>>>>> there is so much power coming from solar that during the day there
>>>>>> is a surplus of power, might be different on warm summer days when
>>>>>> a lot of AC's are running.
>>>>>
>>>>> **And the fact that the authorities have been sitting on their
>>>>> hands for the last decade (thanks to the COALition). Now the adults
>>>>> are in charge, I am hopeful that things will change. Here is one of
>>>>> the best ideas I've heard:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/grants/neighbourhood-battery-initiative
>>>>>
>>>>> It may solve a host of problems.
>>>>
>>>> The "Adults"? Do you mean Albanese the international traveller who
>>>> is racking up his frequent flyer points travelling around the globe
>>>> shaking hands with any miserable cunt that will give him the time of
>>>> day while his government back home does diddly fucking squat about
>>>> cost of living prices going through the roof?
>>>>
>>>> Those adults you mean?
>>>
>>> **I mean the adults who:
>>>
>>> * Didn't invent an illegal scheme to suck money from those who had
>>> none (and caused several to commit suicide). I hope several of the
>>> cunts end up in jail.
>>> * Have a PM who delegates authority to the relevant ministers, rather
>>> than secretly assuming responsibility for those roles.
>>> * Have brought about a federal anti-corruption body.
>>> * Are attending to the very real problem of CO2 emissions.
>>> * Do not defend child molesters and those who support them.
>>> * Are not members of some weird shit religious group.
>>> * Has managed a re-engagement with China.
>>>
>>> Those adults. If you SERIOUSLY imagine that the 9 years of COALition
>>> government was a good government, culminating in the disaster that
>>> was the Morrison debacle then you have rocks in your head.
>>
>> I never said that Trevor.
>
> **And I explained, in exquisite detail, why the last 9 years of
> COALition fuck-ups has ended and we now have adults in charge. The
> present government is demonstrably preferable to the idiots who were in
> charge for the prior 9 years.
>
>  That's *your* fantasy. What I'm saying to you
>> is that Albanese has been in a year now, and despite promising the
>> world has delivered *nothing* of substance.
>
> **BULLSHIT.
>
> * The government has already enacted the legislation for a Federal ICAC.
> Something the COALition avoided doing for YEARS.
> * The government has repaired relations with China.
>
> That's two. There's probably lots more.
>
>
>  Power prices are going up 30% very
>> soon. Guess what he said he would do once he became Prime Minister?
>
> **Albo stated, in no uncertain terms, that power prices would rise by
> around 30% and that the rise was locked in and there was nothing the
> government could do.
>
> Remind me: Who sold off electricity assets around the nation, which has
> led to these price rises?
>
>>   > The COALition has given this nation the two worst PMs in our
>> entire history - Abbott (hey
>>> let's bring back Knighthoods and give one to Prince Philip) and
>>> Morrison.
>>
>> There is absolutely no question that the *WORST* Prime Minister this
>> country has ever had, and by a very long way, was Julia Gillard.
>
> **Apart from your hatred of women, explain PRECISELY what Gillard did
> wrong.
>
>
>  Abbott
>> was/is a complete fucking moron, but Gillard made him look like a
>> Rhodes Scholar.
>
> **You can't be serious.
>
>
>  Inrteresting too that the public generally thought the same
>> thing, which is why he became Prime Minister.
>
> **Not for long. He lost his own seat, which was an incredibly safe
> Liberal seat. That's how popular Abbott was(n't). Abbott was and is a
> complete nong. Abbott was a pretty good opposition leader and a lousy PM.
>
>>
>> Imagine the Labor party having *such* a low confidence vote amongst
>> the electorate that the people would rather have some imbecile like
>> Tony Abbott as Prime Minister rather than Gillard or Rudd :)
>
> **What the great unwashed think about a PM, is not necessarily accurate,
> or sane. I'm going to tell you about the best PM we never had. John
> Hewson. Hewson would have made a great PM. Trouble was, he was up
> against a brilliant tactician, but an average PM. Hewson was
> eviscerated, after he made a small error in one interview.
>
>>
>>> I am very happy to see the climate change deniers booted out.
>>
>> I'm sure you are, but then your view of the world seems to be a
>> strange, heavily blinkered one.
>
> **I simply care about the planet.
>
>>
>>> Ablo and his lot are far from perfect, but they are a whole lot
>>> better than the useless bunch that preceded them.
>>
>> Really? Happy about the "Voice" vote, are you?
>
> **I'm voting 'YES' for two reasons:
>
> * Abos have had a pretty rough trot for the last couple of hundred
> years. It was their country and my forebears pinched it from them. They
> deserve a say in THEIR future.

On 13/07/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>
>>> **They will be very soon.
>>
>> On what basis?
>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>
>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because the
>> majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>
> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
> use them.

Kind of the same thing, isn't it?

Part of their unpopularity, apart from the fact that Millenials are
fucked by any car with three pedals, is the unreliability aspect
associated with dual mass flywheels. Clutches have very short lives, and
engine harmonics become a bit of a mess as flywheels don't live up to
expectations.

Simpler and easier just to use an automatic. Especially with modern
autos what have very effective "manual" modes.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/07/2023 10:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 13/7/2023 6:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> You bury it. There is enough uninhabitable land in this country to
>> safely bury the next 10 thousand years worth of spent fuel, and enough
>> Uranium to generate the next ten thousand years worth of power. Of all
>> the countries in the world we are probably the most ideally suited to
>> take advantage of nuclear energy given that we have thousands of miles
>> of uninhabited coastline, are completely self sufficient in Uranium
>> and have more than enough space to safely dispose of the waste.
>>
>> The only thing we lack is the desire to do so.
>>
>>
>>
> I wouldn't say no to nuclear power but I can't see the attitude of the
> public or the Govt changing anytime soon.

Neither can I, and for no reason other than there would be few state
governments around at the moment who had the money to build one. Still,
if given the choice between a 125 billion dollar train tunnel and a
nuclear power plant that could meet our electricity needs for the next
hundred years I know which one I'd pick.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/07/2023 10:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 13/7/2023 6:59 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>>> Really? Happy about the "Voice" vote, are you?
>>
>> **I'm voting 'YES' for two reasons:
>>
>> * Abos have had a pretty rough trot for the last couple of hundred
>> years. It was their country and my forebears pinched it from them.
>> They deserve a say in THEIR future.
>
> That has got to one of the weirdest statements ever on aus.cars, the
> first word racially abuses them then you say "they deserve a say in
> THEIR future"

Yeah, funny :)

> Try calling a "First Nations" person an "Abo" to their face and let us
> know how you get on after you get out of hospital if you survive that is.
> I will be voting no because they are already well represented in the
> Federal Govt, there are 8 Senators and 3 MPs in the Federal Govt of the
> 151 MP's and 76 Senators that identify as indigenous which is about
> 4.84%, the indigenous population is approx 3.2%.

This is something I don't get. We don't need to change the constitution
to appoint any "advisors". We have stacks of them now, and have done for
years. There are political portfolios headed by Ministers specifically
to cater to the needs of aboriginal people, and I'm fucked if I can see
how making a constitutional change would alter any of that for the better.

> Secondly one race having special extra representation to Govt to further
> their interests above others is racist and aren't we supposed to be
> stamping out racism?

Agreed. It's devisive in the extreme.

> Thirdly I will not vote for anything that is so lacking in detail with
> my fingers crossed that Albo will sort that out later.

And this is my *biggest* objection right here. The utter contempt the
government is showing everyone by feeding them next to no detail about
exactly what the "Voice" is supposed to achieve and considering us all
too stupid to understand how it will all be implemented.

It is the ultimate act of government patronising, and I wouldn't trust a
single one of them, Labor or Liberal, to sort this out after the fact.

> Fourthly Federal Govts of all colors have been spending vast amounts of
> money over very many years on "Aboriginal issues" yet nothing seems to
> get better, I have zero confidence that spending shit loads more money
> on a permanent talk fest in Canberra will make the slightest difference
> to the lives of most Aboriginal people.

Agreed.

There is enough uncertainty and argument over this between groups of
aboriginals themselves. What hope have the rest of us got of sorting
this out?

>> * Tony Abbott, Lydia Thorpe and Peter Dutton are advising a 'NO' vote.
>> Those three are well known for making colossally bad decisions.
>>
>>
>
> That's rather irrational.

It's ridiculous to be honest, but then Trevor does that. Once a
conversation turns political he goes a bit cunty and starts making all
kinds of ridiculous claims.

>>> For fuck's sake....
>>
>> **Well, you may think that Dutton, Thorpe and Abbott are smart people
>> and know what's best, but that says more about you than anything else.
>>
>
> More irrational clap trap, show us where he said any such thing.

I didn't, but that's what he does. Assumption based on nothing but his
own ignorance and bias.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:46:48 +1000, Noddy wrote:

>
> It may have been. All I know is that they've invested heavily in
> renewables and the net result of that is record high electricity prices.

Yep.
If you want a Small Picture, Short-Term Thinker then Fraudster is your man!

alvey

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:20:51 +1000, Noddy wrote:

>
> Unfortunately they *are* expensive, and also the construction time is
> horrendous compared to something like a solar array which can be up and
> running for around half the price for the same generating power and in
> around a 5th of the time. However a nuclear power plant has one
> overwhelming advantage compared to every form of renewable power
> generation you'd care to name,

As ever.. Wrong.
Otto, I can name three other 24/7/365 sources.

1. Tidal
2. Geothermal
3. The inexhaustible supply of bullshit from your gob.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:13:02 +1000, Noddy wrote:

>
> Neither can I, and for no reason other than there would be few state
> governments around at the moment who had the money to build one. Still,
> if given the choice between a 125 billion dollar train tunnel and a
> nuclear power plant that could meet our electricity needs for the next
> hundred years I know which one I'd pick.

What a marvellously idiotic statement!

alvey

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:39:02 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 13/07/2023 6:59 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **Apart from your hatred of women, explain PRECISELY what Gillard did
>> wrong.
>
> Hatred of women? Where do you get *that* bullshit from? :)

I can't imagine Fraudster.

“Like I've always said, if it wasn't for a particular part of their
anatomy blokes would be stacking them [Women. AS] 15 high at the tip”.
Fraudster, 26May13

alvey
All that one requires to show The Fraudster up as a liar and a fool are
his own words.

On 13/07/2023 7:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>> out of existence.
>>>
>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>
>> **They will be very soon. Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>
> Hard to find OK, but illegal?

**A combination of factors, including:

* Modern safety systems that rely on an auto gearbox.
* Superior fuel economy from auto gearboxes.

Both reasons will see them legislated out of existence, possibly with
some rare exceptions. Either way, they're going to be pretty much
impossible to find in the not too distant future.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 13/07/2023 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 13/7/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>> out of existence.
>>>
>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>
>> **They will be very soon.
>
> ROTFL.
> Please define "soon"?

**5 years.

>
>  Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>
> Is it, hang on a minute I just found one in my garage so not that hard
> to find:-)
> Do you mean new cars, if so there is still plenty about if you want one,
> just go to a Subaru dealer, we were at a Subaru dealer about a month ago
> and they had quite a few manual cars for sale.
> Mate is in the UK at the moment, I spoke to him 3 hours ago and the car
> he rented is a manual as are an awful lot of small cars in the UK,
> manuals are getting rarer in Australia but not in other countries.
>
>

**There is only ONE Subaru model available with a manual gearbox. And
Subaru was a bit sneaky with it's latest release.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 13/07/2023 10:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 13/7/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>>
>>>> **They will be very soon.
>>>
>>> On what basis?
>>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>
>>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because
>>> the majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>>
>> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
>> use them.
>>
>
>
> LOL, sad but true.
>
>

**Why is it sad?

I enjoy/d using a manual gearbox, but facts are facts. Autos are more
fuel efficient, longer lasting (for the most part), faster shifting,
able to determine the optimum gear that the vast majority of drivers
cannot and interact with modern safety systems in ways that manuals cannot.

Go find a current model Porsche fitted with a manual. Bet you can't.
That should tell you all you need to know.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 14/07/2023 7:17 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 7:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>>> **They will be very soon. Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>
>> Hard to find OK, but illegal?
>
> **A combination of factors, including:
>
> * Modern safety systems that rely on an auto gearbox.

Really? Which ones in particular?

> * Superior fuel economy from auto gearboxes.

Lol :)

Trevor, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
Manual transmission equipped vehicles always return slightly better fuel
economy than the same vehicle with a conventional automatic transmission
do to the fact that they don't run a torque converter.

> Both reasons will see them legislated out of existence, possibly with
> some rare exceptions. Either way, they're going to be pretty much
> impossible to find in the not too distant future.

They very well may be, but not for any illegality reasons.

You're just making this shit up to suit yourself.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/07/2023 7:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>
>>> **They will be very soon.
>>
>> ROTFL.
>> Please define "soon"?
>
> **5 years.

ROTFL :)

>> Is it, hang on a minute I just found one in my garage so not that hard
>> to find:-)
>> Do you mean new cars, if so there is still plenty about if you want
>> one, just go to a Subaru dealer, we were at a Subaru dealer about a
>> month ago and they had quite a few manual cars for sale.
>> Mate is in the UK at the moment, I spoke to him 3 hours ago and the
>> car he rented is a manual as are an awful lot of small cars in the UK,
>> manuals are getting rarer in Australia but not in other countries.
>>
>>
>
> **There is only ONE Subaru model available with a manual gearbox. And
> Subaru was a bit sneaky with it's latest release.

What was sneaky about it?

There is nothing "illegal" about manual transmissions, and claiming that
they "soon will be" is utterly nonsensical. The main reason most
manufacturers don't offer them any more is because the overwhelming
majority of buyers don't *want* them.

Claiming that they're going to be legislated out of existence is the
most ridiculous comment anyone has ever made around here in quite some time*

*Excluding the daily mental nonsense that comes from the FLC, which
doesn't qualify as legitimate.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/07/2023 7:38 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 10:20 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
>>> use them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL, sad but true.
>>
>>
>
> **Why is it sad?
>
> I enjoy/d using a manual gearbox, but facts are facts. Autos are more
> fuel efficient, longer lasting (for the most part), faster shifting,
> able to determine the optimum gear that the vast majority of drivers
> cannot and interact with modern safety systems in ways that manuals cannot.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that when it comes to vehicles that
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

> Go find a current model Porsche fitted with a manual. Bet you can't.
> That should tell you all you need to know.

What it tells me is that most people who buy new Porsche's are dicks who
can't drive a manual, but either way *none* of that makes manual
transmissions illegal, or about to be.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/7/2023 7:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 13/7/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>
>>> **They will be very soon.
>>
>> ROTFL.
>> Please define "soon"?
>
> **5 years.

LOL, that's comical.
Are you saying that within 5yrs the only new vehicles for sale will be
electric?
I know that the Govt is dumb but they aren't entirely insane and they
would have to be insane to think that its even slightly possible to stop
sales of ICE vehicles within 5yrs.
Even if that was their goal its not achievable, 15yrs maybe.
Just look what Germany did, refusing to comply with the EU which wants
to stop ICE sales by 2030.
A lot of Toyota models are available with a manual gearbox, many Hilux
models and the GR performance models.
Mazda MX5, Porsche Boxster.
Those are the ones I can find without putting much effort into it, no
doubt there are many more.
>
>>
>>   Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>
>> Is it, hang on a minute I just found one in my garage so not that hard
>> to find:-)
>> Do you mean new cars, if so there is still plenty about if you want
>> one, just go to a Subaru dealer, we were at a Subaru dealer about a
>> month ago and they had quite a few manual cars for sale.
>> Mate is in the UK at the moment, I spoke to him 3 hours ago and the
>> car he rented is a manual as are an awful lot of small cars in the UK,
>> manuals are getting rarer in Australia but not in other countries.
>>
>>
>
> **There is only ONE Subaru model available with a manual gearbox. And
> Subaru was a bit sneaky with it's latest release.

How were they sneaky?

--
Daryl

On 14/7/2023 7:38 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 10:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 13/7/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>> **They will be very soon.
>>>>
>>>> On what basis?
>>>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>>>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because
>>>> the majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>>>
>>> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
>>> use them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL, sad but true.
>>
>>
>
> **Why is it sad?

Because too many people will never get to enjoy driving a real sports car.
Too many people have almost no idea how to drive, their cars just about
do everything for them.

>
> I enjoy/d using a manual gearbox, but facts are facts. Autos are more
> fuel efficient, longer lasting (for the most part), faster shifting,
> able to determine the optimum gear that the vast majority of drivers
> cannot and interact with modern safety systems in ways that manuals cannot.

Not always more fuel efficient, it depends on overall gearing.
We used to own a 2001 Corolla manual, our friends had the same year
Corolla auto, the auto was taller geared so it used less fuel at hwy
speeds but the manual used less at city speeds so its not cut and dried.
My wife's Golf is amazingly fuel efficient on a long drive and still
very good overall, it has a 7spd dual clutch "auto" which is really an
automated manual.

>
> Go find a current model Porsche fitted with a manual. Bet you can't.
> That should tell you all you need to know.
>

718 Boxster is available in manual.
--
Daryl

On 13/7/2023 11:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>>
>>>> **They will be very soon.
>>>
>>> On what basis?
>>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>
>>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because
>>> the majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>>
>> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough to
>> use them.
>
> Kind of the same thing, isn't it?
>
> Part of their unpopularity, apart from the fact that Millenials are
> fucked by any car with three pedals, is the unreliability aspect
> associated with dual mass flywheels. Clutches have very short lives, and
> engine harmonics become a bit of a mess as flywheels don't live up to
> expectations.

Dual mass flywheels are a dumb idea, supposed to smooth out vibrations
but they don't even do that, son had 2 vehicles with DMF's that failed,
a VW transporter van and a Mazda ute, both were fixed with conventional
flywheels and clutches, no noticeable extra vibration and a much cheaper
reliable clutch.

>
> Simpler and easier just to use an automatic. Especially with modern
> autos what have very effective "manual" modes.
>

I've owned a lot more manual cars than auto's and I've replaced very few
clutches, so few in fact I can't recall the last one I did on any of my
own cars.
My Hilux was a manual and it did a lot of heavy towing early in its
life, the clutch was still OE when I sold it with over 200,000km on the odo.

--
Daryl

On 14/7/2023 7:17 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 7:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being legislated
>>>>> out of existence.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>
>>> **They will be very soon. Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>
>> Hard to find OK, but illegal?
>
> **A combination of factors, including:
>
> * Modern safety systems that rely on an auto gearbox.

Which systems would they be?
Autonomous emergency braking would still work with a manual, it may
stall the engine but it would still do what it needed to, what else?

> * Superior fuel economy from auto gearboxes.

Not always correct, in some cases that may be true, in others not,
depends on how and where (city or hwy) they are driven.
>
> Both reasons will see them legislated out of existence, possibly with
> some rare exceptions. Either way, they're going to be pretty much
> impossible to find in the not too distant future.
>

Nonsense on both counts.

--
Daryl

On 14/07/2023 10:28 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 14/7/2023 7:38 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 10:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 13/7/2023 9:29 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 9:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2023 6:41 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:28 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/07/2023 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much like manual gearboxes, regular ICE cars are being
>>>>>>>> legislated out of existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? Manual gearboxes are illegal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **They will be very soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On what basis?
>>>>>   > Not yet, of course, but it is VERY hard to
>>>>>> find a car fitted with one right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, they're getting hard to find, but that has nothing to do with
>>>>> legality. A lot of manufacturers don't offer them any more because
>>>>> the majority of buyers don't *want* them.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, it's just that the majority of buyers aren't competent enough
>>>> to use them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, sad but true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Why is it sad?
>
> Because too many people will never get to enjoy driving a real sports car.
> Too many people have almost no idea how to drive, their cars just about
> do everything for them.

**Sure. Then go drive a Model T Ford. Now that car was challenging to
drive. Doesn't make it better though.

>
>>
>> I enjoy/d using a manual gearbox, but facts are facts. Autos are more
>> fuel efficient, longer lasting (for the most part), faster shifting,
>> able to determine the optimum gear that the vast majority of drivers
>> cannot and interact with modern safety systems in ways that manuals
>> cannot.
>
> Not always more fuel efficient, it depends on overall gearing.

**Just so you understand, we are talking about current generation autos,
not 20 year old ones.

> We used to own a 2001 Corolla manual, our friends had the same year
> Corolla auto, the auto was taller geared so it used less fuel at hwy
> speeds but the manual used less at city speeds so its not cut and dried.
> My wife's Golf is amazingly fuel efficient on a long drive and still
> very good overall, it has a 7spd dual clutch "auto" which is really an
> automated manual.

**It is an auto.

>
>>
>> Go find a current model Porsche fitted with a manual. Bet you can't.
>> That should tell you all you need to know.
>>
>
>
> 718 Boxster is available in manual.

**Boxster - The hairdresser's Porsche. I haven't looked, but I assume it
is the only model with a manual box?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com