On 14/7/2023 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 10:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> **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.
>>
>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite their
>> many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>
> Now you're just flat out *lying* for the sake of it Trevor. I've *hated*
> Abbott with a passion ever since he was Health Minister years ago was
> involved in the RU486 fiasco, and I have said so around here *many*
> times. I've never supported him once, and your claim that I support
> Abbott and Dutton (who I've never given two fucks about one way or the
> other) is nothing but flat out bullshit.
>
> Your credibility just went straight out the window, you fucking idiot.
>
Your *credibility*, such as it was, was all based on lie after lie after
lie! Since your lies have been exposed, you have zero credibility, none
whatsoever! And likely never did have in all your miserable existence.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 14/07/2023 6:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 14/7/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite their
>> many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>>
>>
> I support Abbott, you are out of your fucking mind, he's a useless cunt
> and what makes you think I support Dutton?

He's off his nut.

> We haven't had an election since Dutton became leader of the opposition,
> at this point in time I really don't care all that much for any of our
> "leaders", none of them inspire any confidence.

Nope.

> I do tend to lean towards Liberal policies but that is different to
> supporting them directly, I've voted Labor many many time more than I
> have ever voted Liberal, oddly enough the current Fed Labor Govt is very
> Liberal in that they are all talk and very little action.

Lol :)

Albanese is big on rhetoric, but when it comes time to deliver he's
overseas on "business". I can't recall the last time I saw an Australian
Prime Minister visit so many countries and international Forums as Albo
has done in such a short time. Nor can I recall a single benefit coming
from any of it other than lots of photo ops of Albo enthusiastically
shaking hands with foreign dignitaries who all seem to have a "Who the
fuck is this guy?" look on their faces :)

> Previous Labor Govts have made plenty of gigantic fuckups but at least
> they had a go and did something whereas Liberal tends to do very little,

It's the old cliche'. Labor gets in and spends money like they're going
to stop making it tomorrow on major projects that are hopelessly
inadequate in their objectives and massively under-budgeted (NBN
anyone?) until they push us to the verge of bankruptcy and we get sick
to death of it.

So we give them the arse and put the Libs in who cut all spending and
put the economy into "Park" in the hope of paying off our massive debt
and getting us back into the black. And then we get sick of *that* and
put Labor back in and the cycle starts all over again.

As I said, it's an old cliche, but the sad part is that it happens to be
true. At least when John Howard was PM he paid off the entire
Commonwealth debt. Something no Labor government has ever done :)

> in the end it doesn't seem to make a hell of difference, life goes on
> regardless whose in power in Canberra.

It just ends up costing us more. Like it is in Victoria right now. 125
billion for a train service. Imagine how many people *wouldn't* have to
die waiting for an Ambulance if they threw a quarter of that money at
the health system?

> I just try and ignore the lot of them, they are all fucking useless.

And that's precisely how they continue to get away with it :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/07/2023 8:38 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 4:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>> What a load of pig-ignorant crap. Geothermal and tidal in spades you
>> dickhead.
>
> Geothermal in Australia?

Lol :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole
>> of Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other
>> properties we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>
> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice
> bridge that you might be interested in.

prove it wrong then.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!
https://imgur.com/gallery/v4u4c15

On 14/07/2023 9:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole
>>> of Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other
>>> properties we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>>
>> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice
>> bridge that you might be interested in.
>
> prove it wrong then.
>
Your assertion, you prove it right. It's another media scare story, but
it appears to have sucked you in.

On 14/7/2023 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 6:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 14/7/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite
>>> their many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>>>
>>>
>> I support Abbott, you are out of your fucking mind, he's a useless
>> cunt and what makes you think I support Dutton?
>
> He's off his nut.
>
>> We haven't had an election since Dutton became leader of the
>> opposition, at this point in time I really don't care all that much
>> for any of our "leaders", none of them inspire any confidence.
>
> Nope.
>
>> I do tend to lean towards Liberal policies but that is different to
>> supporting them directly, I've voted Labor many many time more than I
>> have ever voted Liberal, oddly enough the current Fed Labor Govt is
>> very Liberal in that they are all talk and very little action.
>
> Lol :)
>
> Albanese is big on rhetoric, but when it comes time to deliver he's
> overseas on "business". I can't recall the last time I saw an Australian
> Prime Minister visit so many countries and international Forums as Albo
> has done in such a short time. Nor can I recall a single benefit coming
> from any of it other than lots of photo ops of Albo enthusiastically
> shaking hands with foreign dignitaries who all seem to have a "Who the
> fuck is this guy?" look on their faces :)
>
>> Previous Labor Govts have made plenty of gigantic fuckups but at least
>> they had a go and did something whereas Liberal tends to do very little,
>
> It's the old cliche'. Labor gets in and spends money like they're going
> to stop making it tomorrow on major projects that are hopelessly
> inadequate in their objectives and massively under-budgeted (NBN
> anyone?) until they push us to the verge of bankruptcy and we get sick
> to death of it.
>
> So we give them the arse and put the Libs in who cut all spending and
> put the economy into "Park" in the hope of paying off our massive debt
> and getting us back into the black. And then we get sick of *that* and
> put Labor back in and the cycle starts all over again.
>
> As I said, it's an old cliche, but the sad part is that it happens to be
> true. At least when John Howard was PM he paid off the entire
> Commonwealth debt. Something no Labor government has ever done :)
>
>> in the end it doesn't seem to make a hell of difference, life goes on
>> regardless whose in power in Canberra.
>
> It just ends up costing us more. Like it is in Victoria right now. 125
> billion for a train service. Imagine how many people *wouldn't* have to
> die waiting for an Ambulance if they threw a quarter of that money at
> the health system?

The cost is insane, I'm all for improving public transport but the way
they are doing it with staggering amounts of debt that my great great
grandchildren will still be paying for is crazy.

>
>> I just try and ignore the lot of them, they are all fucking useless.
>
> And that's precisely how they continue to get away with it :)
>

I should have said that I try to ignore them except around election time:-)

--
Daryl

On 14/07/2023 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 10:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>>> **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.
>>
>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite their
>> many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>
> Now you're just flat out *lying* for the sake of it Trevor. I've *hated*
> Abbott with a passion ever since he was Health Minister years ago was
> involved in the RU486 fiasco, and I have said so around here *many*
> times. I've never supported him once, and your claim that I support
> Abbott and Dutton (who I've never given two fucks about one way or the
> other) is nothing but flat out bullshit.
>
> Your credibility just went straight out the window, you fucking idiot.

Ever notice the resemblance between Dutton and Lord Voldemort.

Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 9:19 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>>>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole
>>>> of Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other
>>>> properties we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>>>
>>> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice
>>> bridge that you might be interested in.
>>
>> prove it wrong then.
>>
> Your assertion, you prove it right. It's another media scare story,
> but it appears to have sucked you in.

since you don't know it's wrong that's merely an assumption on your
part. but I know you suffer from the common trait of the FLC.. poor
rationality. anyhow, here's some info..

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fpartypol%2F8638543%22

"Labor will also establish a Makarrata Commission with responsibility
for Treaty and truth telling. If we want to understand the challenges of
the present, we must understand their roots in past trauma. The
Makarrata Commission will support local models of truth-telling, in
partnership with First Nations communities and other levels of
government. It will also develop a national framework for treaty-making
as a first step, taking into account existing State and Territory treaty
processes. Without Treaty and truth, we will never be all that we can be
as a nation. Labor will take the steps necessary to progress these
important elements of the Uluru Statement so its full vision becomes a
reality."

https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/treaty

"In Victoria, there will be one overarching Statewide Treaty and
multiple local Treaties with individual Traditional Owner groups,
covering matters as diverse as political representation, land and water,
and economic development"

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!
https://imgur.com/gallery/v4u4c15

On 14/7/2023 10:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2023 10:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>>> **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.
>>>
>>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite
>>> their many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>>
>> Now you're just flat out *lying* for the sake of it Trevor. I've
>> *hated* Abbott with a passion ever since he was Health Minister years
>> ago was involved in the RU486 fiasco, and I have said so around here
>> *many* times. I've never supported him once, and your claim that I
>> support Abbott and Dutton (who I've never given two fucks about one
>> way or the other) is nothing but flat out bullshit.
>>
>> Your credibility just went straight out the window, you fucking idiot.
>
> Ever notice the resemblance between Dutton and Lord Voldemort.
>

LOL, similar hair style:-)

--
Daryl

On 14/07/2023 8:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole of
>> Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other properties
>> we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>
> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice bridge
> that you might be interested in.

Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who can't tell the
difference between CGI generated animations and reality.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/07/2023 10:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Ever notice the resemblance between Dutton and Lord Voldemort.

I had to look up "Lord Voldemort" to see who you were referring to as
I've never seen any of the Harry Potter films and have no idea of any
the characters.

And yes. The resemblance is uncanny :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/7/2023 11:32 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 8:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole
>>> of Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other
>>> properties we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>>
>> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice
>> bridge that you might be interested in.
>
> Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who can't tell the
> difference between CGI generated animations and reality.....
>
The above written by a moron who creates his own pseudo-reality because
he hates the reality he has lived since birth.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:38:09 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:

> On 14/07/2023 4:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>> What a load of pig-ignorant crap. Geothermal and tidal in spades you
>> dickhead.
>
> Geothermal in Australia?

Hey Richo! As the sole arbiter of what's valid and "worth responding to",
would you say that me declaring you cocked up here was valid and worth a
response?

See, the problem with your attempted snipe is that the OP (Originating
Pillock) made absolutely *no* mention of any location.

oty Richo!

alvey
'How to Start A Flame War' by Richo

Step 1. Douse yourself in petrol.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:14:27 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 14/07/2023 8:38 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 4:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> What a load of pig-ignorant crap. Geothermal and tidal in spades you
>>> dickhead.
>>
>> Geothermal in Australia?
>
> Lol :)

lol indeed.

Poor old Fraudster. He just can't get any sort of half-decent lapdog.
And you know why that is Fraudster? Well of course you don't. It was a
rhetorical question, so I'll tell you. It's because you're a repulsive,
obnoxious and vainglorious bully wannabee whose string of self-glorifying
lies have been so thoroughly and unarguably exposed that no one with any
sense of right or reality would have anything to do with you.

hth

alvey

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 23:32:43 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 14/07/2023 8:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 7:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>
>>> yes really. are you aware that it's ALP policy if the Voice gets up
>>> for us to have an Aboriginal treaty, and land rights over the whole of
>>> Australia? ie, so your house block and mine and any other properties
>>> we own? at least that's what was said in the media recently
>>
>> And you believed it? Amazing, in that case, I've got a real nice bridge
>> that you might be interested in.
>
> Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who can't tell the
> difference between CGI generated animations and reality.....

Ignoring the deep irony of The Fraud mentioning "reality", it's always a
laugh to read his latest non sequitur. They certainly give him a reason to
hide behind his (snigger) killfile.

alvey

On 14/07/2023 10:57 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 14/7/2023 10:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 14/07/2023 6:23 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2023 10:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> **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.
>>>>
>>>> **He continually supports Dutton and Abbott (as do you), despite
>>>> their many idiotic statements. As are Thorpe's.
>>>
>>> Now you're just flat out *lying* for the sake of it Trevor. I've
>>> *hated* Abbott with a passion ever since he was Health Minister years
>>> ago was involved in the RU486 fiasco, and I have said so around here
>>> *many* times. I've never supported him once, and your claim that I
>>> support Abbott and Dutton (who I've never given two fucks about one
>>> way or the other) is nothing but flat out bullshit.
>>>
>>> Your credibility just went straight out the window, you fucking idiot.
>>
>> Ever notice the resemblance between Dutton and Lord Voldemort.
>>
>
>
> LOL, similar hair style:-)
>
>
I was told by some-one who worked there, that, when he was minister for
home affairs, he was known in the department as "Spud".

On 14/07/2023 7:42 am, Noddy wrote:
> 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?

**Automatic braking, for one.

>
>> * 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.

**That assumes that ALL manual gearbox drivers know what they're doing.
I am quite certain that many (probably most) do not. Additionally, CVT
transmission equipped cars return superior fuel economy to their manual
equivalents.

>
>> 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.

**The UK has effectively legislated manual gearbox cars off the road
from 2030. It is just a matter of time before other places follow.

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

**So you say, but the facts are far more prosaic. The world is rapidly
moving towards the following types of cars:

* Hybrids. The Toyota (and others) hybrid system, a CVT transmission is
necessary to ensure a smooth combination of ICE and EV.
* PHEVs. These are basically EVs (like the Mitsubishi system), where an
ICE charges a battery, which, in turn drives electric motors.
* BEVs. You know about these.
* Fuel cell. Basically a variant on an EV.

Since governments are driving CO2 emissions down, they will legislate
ICE (only) cars off the roads. That leave one of the above four systems
to choose from. NONE can use a manual gearbox, nor is one required.

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

On 14/07/2023 10:45 am, Daryl wrote:
> 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?

**As many people can attest, an inconveniently stalled car can represent
a very serious safety hazard.

>
>> * 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.

**Sure. A VERY good driver can extract slightly better fuel economy from
a manual gearbox, compared to older style autos. Modern autos are more
economical though.

>>
>> 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.

**We'll see. The UK has effectively legislated manual gearbox cars off
the road, starting in 2030. And that is from a right wing government, I
might add.

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

On 14/07/2023 12:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 14/7/2023 11:12 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Same applies to current models, overall gearing makes a difference as
> does how and where they are driven.

**Of course, but driven under identical conditions, by an average
driver, a modern auto will be more fuel efficient.

>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Sort of, best of both worlds.

**It is an auto. I can manually select what gear I want to use in my
Levorg (using those flappy paddle things and selecting 'Manual') or in
my Stagea, simply selecting 'Manual' and moving the gear lever up or
down. I am under no illusions though. Both cars are automatic. In fact,
so damned good is the auto in the Levorg that I never use the flappy
paddles. When driving hard, I select the 'Sports #' mode in the Levorg
and it anticipates what I would want to do, had I been using a manual
gearbox. It's fast and highly intuitive. Even better, when I plonk it in
'puttering around town' mode, it returns a fairly respectable 7.2L/100km
fuel consumption. Not too shabby.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Idiot,

**Not my description. I have a mate who owns and has owned a slew of
Porsches (and one Ferrari). He is a 911 (and, once a 930) guy. He
describes the Boxster ad a hairdresser's car.

have a look at some of the current models, blow the doors of your
> Subaru and even faster than some current 911's, as per usual you have no
> idea what you are talking about.
> My 21yr old Boxster would easily out handle and out brake your Subaru,
> don't forget we owned a WRX so I've driven both, have you?

**I would expect nothing less from such a car.

>
> I haven't looked, but I assume it
>> is the only model with a manual box?
>>
>>
>
>
> Very likely but I haven't looked at the full range.
> Interesting that quite a few people are spending lots of money to
> convert "F1" trans Ferrari's to gated manuals which increases their
> value very significantly.

**We are talking about buying new cars here.

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

On 14/07/2023 7:47 am, Noddy wrote:
> 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?

**This:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/toyota-gr86-subaru-brz-ancap-no-plans/

>
> 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.

**Sure, that's a big part, but in places like the UK, you will not be
able to buy a manual gearbox car after 2030:

https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/the-future-of-manual-cars

"Are manual cars going away?

In short, yes. There’s no set ban on manual transmission itself, but
there is a ban coming into place in 2030 on all petrol and diesel cars.
That, by default, rules out manual cars, as all electric cars are
automatic. The ban will only restrict the sale of petrol and diesel
cars, though. Those that are already on the road can continue to be
driven. So, manual cars aren’t going to instantly disappear, but they’re
definitely on track to becoming a relic of the past."

Other nations are doing likewise. It is just a matter of time before
Australia does the same.

>
> 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*

**We'll see. I'd give until 2035. At the latest.

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

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

alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:14:27 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 14/07/2023 8:38 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 14/07/2023 4:35 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> What a load of pig-ignorant crap. Geothermal and tidal in spades you
>>>> dickhead.
>>> Geothermal in Australia?
>> Lol :)
> lol indeed.
>
> Poor old Fraudster. He just can't get any sort of half-decent lapdog.
> And you know why that is Fraudster? Well of course you don't. It was a
> rhetorical question, so I'll tell you. It's because you're a repulsive,
> obnoxious and vainglorious bully wannabee whose string of self-glorifying
> lies have been so thoroughly and unarguably exposed that no one with any
> sense of right or reality would have anything to do with you.
>
>
> hth
>

LOL

> alvey

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!
https://imgur.com/gallery/v4u4c15

On 15/07/2023 8:54 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 7:42 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> * Modern safety systems that rely on an auto gearbox.
>>
>> Really? Which ones in particular?
>
> **Automatic braking, for one.

Autonomous braking is *not* reliant on the presence of an automatic
transmission and will work just as effectively with a manual trans. Thst
you are completely ignorant of this does not make it reality.

>> 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.
>
> **That assumes that ALL manual gearbox drivers know what they're doing.

It assumes no such thing at all and instead is based on the mechanical
reality of manual transmissions being locked to the crankshaft in every
gear whereas torque converters are not.

You apparently have zero understanding of this.

> I am quite certain that many (probably most) do not.

Really? And you base this on what exactly?

Personally I find it hilarious that someone who insists that AWD makes a
difference to a vechicle's handling could ever have the audacity to make
any declaration about anyone *else's* driving ability :)

Talk about Dunning-Kruger :)

> Additionally, CVT transmission equipped cars return superior fuel economy to their manual
> equivalents.

That's because they have an unlimited number of ratios, and has nothing
whatsoever to do with them being "automatic".

Jesus....

>>> 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.
>
> **The UK has effectively legislated manual gearbox cars off the road
> from 2030. It is just a matter of time before other places follow.

Have they really?

Please, point to the legislation that specifically bans manual
transmission equipped cars after 2030. I'd be delighted to read it.

Don't worry. I'm not holding my breath that you'll ever come up with it.

>> You're just making this shit up to suit yourself.
>
> **So you say, but the facts are far more prosaic.

I'm quite convinced that "facts" are something you don't deal with well.

> The world is rapidly moving towards the following types of cars:

> * Hybrids. The Toyota (and others) hybrid system, a CVT transmission is
> necessary to ensure a smooth combination of ICE and EV.
> * PHEVs. These are basically EVs (like the Mitsubishi system), where an
> ICE charges a battery, which, in turn drives electric motors.
> * BEVs. You know about these.
> * Fuel cell. Basically a variant on an EV.

Yes, they are. But what does any of that irrelevant crap have to to with
making manual transmissions illegal?

> Since governments are driving CO2 emissions down, they will legislate
> ICE (only) cars off the roads. That leave one of the above four systems
> to choose from. NONE can use a manual gearbox, nor is one required.

So *that's* the logic behind this nonsense, is it? Manual transmissions
will be made illegal because ICE's will be.

Jesus Christ.... :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 15/07/2023 8:57 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 10:45 am, Daryl wrote:

>>> **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?
>
> **As many people can attest, an inconveniently stalled car can represent
> a very serious safety hazard.

A manual car would only ever be stalled if it came to a complete stop
from the application of autonomous emergency braking, and your argument
is invalid in any case given that many people who do so in manual cars
without AEB stall their engines anyway.

>> Not always correct, in some cases that may be true, in others not,
>> depends on how and where (city or hwy) they are driven.
>
> **Sure. A VERY good driver can extract slightly better fuel economy from
> a manual gearbox, compared to older style autos. Modern autos are more
> economical though.

It has nothing to do with the driver, Trevor. It's about the different
types of mechanical connection between the engine and transmission.

It's that simple.

>> Nonsense on both counts.
>
> **We'll see. The UK has effectively legislated manual gearbox cars off
> the road, starting in 2030. And that is from a right wing government, I
> might add.

That's the second time now that you've posted this nonsense without a
cite to back it up.

Any reason for that?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:29:08 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 15/07/2023 8:57 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **We'll see. The UK has effectively legislated manual gearbox cars off
>> the road, starting in 2030. And that is from a right wing government, I
>> might add.
>
> That's the second time now that you've posted this nonsense without a
> cite to back it up.
>
> Any reason for that?

Following your example.

On 15/7/2023 9:07 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 12:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 14/7/2023 11:12 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Same applies to current models, overall gearing makes a difference as
>> does how and where they are driven.
>
> **Of course, but driven under identical conditions, by an average
> driver, a modern auto will be more fuel efficient.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Sort of, best of both worlds.
>
> **It is an auto. I can manually select what gear I want to use in my
> Levorg (using those flappy paddle things and selecting 'Manual') or in
> my Stagea, simply selecting 'Manual' and moving the gear lever up or
> down. I am under no illusions though. Both cars are automatic. In fact,
> so damned good is the auto in the Levorg that I never use the flappy
> paddles. When driving hard, I select the 'Sports #' mode in the Levorg
> and it anticipates what I would want to do, had I been using a manual
> gearbox. It's fast and highly intuitive. Even better, when I plonk it in
> 'puttering around town' mode, it returns a fairly respectable 7.2L/100km
> fuel consumption. Not too shabby.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Idiot,
>
> **Not my description. I have a mate who owns and has owned a slew of
> Porsches (and one Ferrari). He is a 911 (and, once a 930) guy. He
> describes the Boxster ad a hairdresser's car.

In one extremely short sentence, you emasculated Daryl. Bravo!
>
>  have a look at some of the current models, blow the doors of your
>> Subaru and even faster than some current 911's, as per usual you have
>> no idea what you are talking about.
>> My 21yr old Boxster would easily out handle and out brake your Subaru,
>> don't forget we owned a WRX so I've driven both, have you?
>
Proof of emasculation writ large!
>
> **I would expect nothing less from such a car.

Yep, they *compensate* for wee todgers!
>
>>
>> I haven't looked, but I assume it
>>> is the only model with a manual box?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Very likely but I haven't looked at the full range.
>> Interesting that quite a few people are spending lots of money to
>> convert "F1" trans Ferrari's to gated manuals which increases their
>> value very significantly.
>
> **We are talking about buying new cars here.
>
>
Yeah but Daryl is talking about people of a similar ilk to himself -
emasculated males who need to compensate.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)