Car vandalism

Kim Philby is turning is his grave. George had no chance. Clues all lover the place but maybe that was intentional, or was it?

Be disparaging about ESL 57s.  That will soon smoke him out.

Come, my friends! Let's get back to cars and cycles!

ATB from Kim!

Just like the good ol' days!

Well I think the Forum should have a little bit of light hearted fun in it!

Greetings, Tony!

ATB from Sir Anthony [Blunt].

Recitar! Mentre presso dal delirio non so più quel che dico e quel che faccio! Eppur è d'uopo... sforzati! Bah! sei tu forse un uom? Tu sei Pagliaccio!

Eh, George?

Cheers,

EJ

Dear EJ,

I'll guess that is modern Italian!

No doubt it means something nice!

ATB from Farmer Parker

George,

No need to become offensive.

I made it very clear that in my view cyclists should PAY for the privilage of using the existing highway on the basis of occupancy.

If they don't want to pay for this privilage, then pay for  a separate network of cyclepaths.

You simply can't expect to use facilities paid for by others.

I don't begrudge paying for two cars.

Cheers

Don

Who pays for the vast number of pedestrians, who outnumber cyclists vastly?

It is a part of modern civilised society that there is provision of services and facilities that are not paid for directly or even proportionally by those avail themselves of them.

I for one am glad that this is so in the UK, and am quite happy to pay for services such as the Police, swimming pools, libraries, schools and so on that I have no personal use for!

It is the way of the world!

And I don't think your position is going to catch on. More likely that those running inefficient motor cars that are highly taxed, will be even more highly taxed in future, and I profoundly welcome that!

ATB from Farmer

"There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself,  the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither  for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good,  and the third kind useless."

Niccolo Machiavelli

Ah well, I always knew I was useless!

Farmer

George,

That  was not the translation to the above text. Its is just my reaction,  in English,  to the previous post with another quote by a well known italian author. It should not bother your unless clowns are your thing.

We all take you more seriously than you think GF.

Warmest regards

Tony

Nobody should take me too seriously, except on music in the specific instance of style in performance of Baroque music. In that case I know my stuff, but otherwise I am just an amateur ...

ATB from George

Welcome back, George!

I finally slipped!

Thanks anyway!

ATB from George

Sometimes you just have to read just to see how low it can go...kind of like not be able to resist looking at a bad car wreck (or should I say, in the interest of equality, bike wreck.)

Dear Dr Mark,

Our friend Dungasin was not describing a car wreck, but only a superficial bit of damage, which is more frustrating than catastrophic. If that is the biggest problem that he faced that week, I would not loose too much sleep over it.

On occasion I am informed of one friend or another being in a car crash. The first question that I ask is how well they are. When told they are unscathed, I ask what of the car. "Completely broken." And to be honest it is the injury to the friend rather than the wreck of a car that is important.

Last week I was told of a crash where a friend's brother in law had fifty stitches, and the very fine Audi was a total wreck. Nothing to worry about in reality compared to the potential that a tree went throw the windscreen and missed the driver by inches.

If you see my point?

People first, things second ...

ATB from George

Hi George:

Nothing in my post was even implicit in the slightest that an automobile itself is in any way more important than the people involved, and how you drew that out of it I am not quite sure.

We have a colloquialism over here about not being able to look away from something that is ridiculous or bad (e.g., the direction of the thread) as is the case when one sees a bad car wreck, and it is that expression to which I refer in my post.  Indeed, upon hearing of a real car wreck, my first inquiry is the same as yours, and the news that the person is OK despite extensive or total damage to the vehicle is always a welcome relief.

Having in the past treated literally dozens of auto accident victims, I am probably more in tune to the dangers,, injuries, and effects of same than are most.  And nothing in my most recent post should give thought to incorrect priorities of people vs. material things...

PS - good to see you back, albeit under different cover!

Dear Dr Mark,

I don't even remotely think you made an equivalence between damage or even total wrecking of a car to a human injury.

What I was doing, however, is point out that in any given week many of us face much more serious problems, and so our perspective is rather more one of seeing Dungasin's problem as being something of a minor irritant in the scale of things.

What brought it to mind was your mention of some [rather horribly strange, in my view] peoples' wish to stare at a car wreck, so I worked from there.

As a matter of good news my friend's brother in law has now had more than half his stitches removed, and is making a good recovery.

Our friend Dungasin apparently has a problem with some local ducks eating bird food on his lawn. Oh that such problems were the most serious that most of us face with regularity. And so I could not find myself feeling huge sympathy or empathy, in a week that I have sent two cards of sympathy in case of bereavement with either his car situation or the duck one. See the new thread on this which has unsurprisingly not seen much sympathy being extended so far.

My solution to the car one I have outlined earlier in the thread, and on the ducks, simply stop putting bird food out. The ducks don't know that they are the wrong sort of bird. Is that duck-ism? I am sorry but these are pin-prick sized problems in the bigger picture.

ATB from George

As I said, it is a colloquialism, apparently American in origin.  You know the car wreck is horrible and part of you wants to not look, but most people cannot resist the temptation/fascination to look, if not just for a moment.  (And that is human nature, not just American!) 

So it was reading the latter part of the thread; I knew I shouldn't even waste my time on such as it was, but there was an almost perverse fascination with how ridiculous the whole thing had become.

And in the grand scheme of things, even our lives and deaths are but mere blips on the radar screen of eternity, and few of us will even be remembered 100 years after we are gone.

On more audio-related topics, I shall soon be requesting more classical music recommendations, so you and others with excellent knowledge please stand ready to assist! 

George. I don't have a problem with ducks.  Couldn't care less, in fact, apart from SWMBO giving me grief over it.  My posting was not meant to be taken seriously, but merely as an instance of wifely illogic.

This thread has deteriorated to a slanging match between 'holier than thou' people who seem to have enormous problems with those who own/run cars vs everybody else.  I have no problems with cyclists using the roads, providing they are sensible enough to use lights at night, but do wish that adults would refrain from riding on pavements.  After all, I am an occasional cyclist myself, and am certainly frequently a pedestrian.

Personally, my car is for transport, and my mileage is <8000 per year.  This is mostly driving up and down to London or Cambridge.  I do like to see my grandkids, and to use public transport for that purpose would make a journey of 2-3 hours into an all-day event, by the time I allowed for waiting for connections etc.  Moving nearer to one wouldn't really help - after all, how do I know they are going to stay where they are?

Otherwise the car is used about once a week for the 'big shop', and occasionally for hospital appointments etc.  I choose to have a nice car to do this in, and would appreciate being left to my own choices in this regard.

John

George

99% of us are pedestrians. General taxation covers the cost of footpaths, ie paid for by 100% of us and used by 99%.

10% of us are cyclists. I don't consider these 10% should dictate the terms on which the motorist can use the highway which the motorist has paid for. And I don't consider these 10% are entitled to demand free use of this road network.

When cyclists were fewer in number and less vocal about their rights, I didn't feel as strongly as I do now. So I guess cyclists should either SHUT UP  or PUT UP. IMHO of course.

Cheers

Don

99%, 10% etc are notional, please don't ask for references.

Dear Don,

Whether you consider this or that thing to be so does not make it so.

Cyclist are granted the privilege to use the Queen's highway for no specific payment. Motorists are not, unless they pay Road Fund Tax, except in t he case of Tax exempt vehicles. You may not like it, but it is a fact whether you like it or not. That you do not like it hardly matters in the bigger picture, and does not worry me as clearly your position is most unlikely become the basis for transport policy in the UK in my view.

Best wishes from George

On a separate matter, I trust the new Dac/Amp/speakers continue to provide beautiful music and wonderful enjoyment.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

The little replay set continues to bring unalloyed joy! Thank-you for asking.

One day I may write something on the Twins Thread, about it to round out that particular thread.

Best wishes from George

PS: Let's call it PAX here, if you want?