On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:18:37 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ... A 
>>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars 
>>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got 
>>>>
>>>>>  That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening.
>>>>
>>>>I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way 
>>>>off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various 
>>>>good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the 
>>>>stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically 
>>>>unreasonable.
>>>>
>>>>Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting?
>>>
>>>You are hair splitting (aka trolling).
>>
>>They do appear to be hair splitting.
>>
>>But that is not trolling.
>>
>>Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of
>>"trolling" about various people
>>
>It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and
>others) do.
>
>I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury
>of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims.
>
>>>There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of
>>>'dangerous' implies some particular condition.
>>>
>>>Sensible people understand that condition.
>>>
>>>Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding
>>>obvious.
>>> 
>>
>>While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post
>>trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think*
>>is "bleeding obvious".
>
>Instead of just asking.
>
>Perverse, isn't it?
>
>I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept
>an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual
>problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to
>protract the argument.


I'll tell you what the problem was (yet again):

I disagreed when you and others said that the unfortunate pedestrian
who was run down and killed by the cyclist was drunk.

You then argued as to the meaning of drunk - and changed you view to
inebriated - and then again to intoxicated (the order may have been
the other way round).

The point which I was making was that there was no evidence produced
in court that she was drunk.  The point that you were trying to make
was that she contributed to he own death because she was
drunk/intoxicated/inebriated.

The defence did not even mention the words drunk, intoxicated, or
inebriated (as far as I am aware).

Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk
and was therefore partially responsible for her own death.

You then did exactly the same in arguing that the cyclist had not
received the maximum sentence and therefore the Judge must have
thought the cyclist's actions were not too extreme.

On 14 Jul, 09:20, Digi...@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:35:19 +0100, judith 
> wrote:
>
> When you have finished remedial English, could you brush up on
> netiquette and learn how to snip?
>
> Even trolls can usualy manage that.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> >I'll tell you what the problem was (yet again):
>
> >I disagreed when you and others said that the unfortunate pedestrian
> >who was run down and killed by the cyclist was drunk.
>
> And I immediately realised that those who objected were correct and used
> the more correct term 'inebriated'.
>
> >You then argued as to the meaning of drunk
>
> I did not argue as to the meaning of drunk.
>
> I accepted that it was the wrong term to use. Unless she had an
> unusually low alcohol tolerance I doubt she was what any reasonable
> person would cal drunk
>
> > - and changed you view to
> >inebriated - and then again to intoxicated (the order may have been
> >the other way round).
>
> I did not change it to 'intoxicated' I started using 'intoxicated' as
> the OED2 gives 'intoxicated' as the first meaning for 'inebriated' and
> you need to go to 'intoxicated' to get a proper definition.
>
> >The point which I was making was that there was no evidence produced
> >in court that she was drunk.  The point that you were trying to make
> >was that she contributed to he own death because she was
> >drunk/intoxicated/inebriated.
>
> She *may* have conributed to her own death because of her inebriation.
>
> There *was* evidence presented to the court that she had drunk two cans
> of Stella.
>
> According to the OED2 the first definitions of 'intoxicated' reating to
> alcohol are:
>
> "Stupefied or having the brain affected with a drug or alcoholic liquor;
> inebriated, drunk."
>
> The first of these cleary applies to the deceased
>
> This has been explained to again and again and again but still you
> either haven't grasped the fairly simple reasoning invoved or have
> decided that there is still mileage for your trolling.
>
> >The defence did not even mention the words drunk, intoxicated, or
> >inebriated (as far as I am aware).
>
> Which has no relevance whatsoever.
>
> I was refering to evidence which *was* given.
>
> >Therefore you and others were plain wrong to assert that she was drunk
>
> That was admitted way back.
>
> And that is why your continued prattling on an on about it can be
> considered as nothing other than puerile trolling.

If a person can drive a vehicle with 80/100 ml I am damn sure a person
can walk along a pavement with two cans of Stella washing around
without too much of a problem.  Your argument is facile, foolish,
insensitive and blatantly constructed to excuse the cyclist from the
consequences of his actions, if not wholly then in part.  The cyclist
was, I take it not drunk, intoxicated or inebriated so should have
taken appropriate action to avoid a collision, he failed to do so and
a young woman died needlessly, whilst walking on the pavement where
she should have been save.  The cyclist should not have been on the
pavement so it doesn't matter if she was stone cold sober or 'pissed
as a sapper on pay day' he was in the wrong and should have paid the
proper 'moral' penalty...as should all who cause death on the roads
though there own arrogance rather than 'true accident'.

This is not the thread to discuss this so can we return to the real
topic now?

Sniper8052

Perusing the sales brochure for the Toyota Auris I note that the two models 
that are offered with their automatic 'Multi-Mode' gearboxes (the 1.6 petrol 
and 1.4 diesel) have identical fuel consumption figures for the manual 
gearbox and the automatic gearbox. In fact, with the 1.6 petrol engine, the 
automatic gearbox gives slightly improved mpg over the manual.

1.6 manual: 39.8 combined, 47.9 extra urban, 31.4 urban.
1.6 auto: 40.9 combined, 47.9 extra urban, 33.2 urban.

For the 1.4 diesel the two sets of figures are identical for both manual and 
auto:
56.5 combined, 62.8 extra urban, 48.7 urban.


As an auto driver myself this is the first time that I have seen an 
automatic (particularly a diesel auto) that gives the same mpg as the 
manual.  Usually there is a fuel penalty of around 2 - 3 mpg for petrol 
autos and around 6 - 8 mpg for diesel autos. Often (as is the case with my 
diesel auto) the increased consumption means higher CO2 output which results 
in a higher tax band for the auto.

So how do they do it?  Even the superb VAG 'DSG' gearbox (which is really 
two manual gearboxes side by side) has a fuel penalty.  How have Toyota 
produced this miracle?

Ret.

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:hZidnRn7qO_ZqubVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Perusing the sales brochure for the Toyota Auris I note that the two 
> models that are offered with their automatic 'Multi-Mode' gearboxes (the 
> 1.6 petrol and 1.4 diesel) have identical fuel consumption figures for the 
> manual gearbox and the automatic gearbox. In fact, with the 1.6 petrol 
> engine, the automatic gearbox gives slightly improved mpg over the manual.
>
> 1.6 manual: 39.8 combined, 47.9 extra urban, 31.4 urban.
> 1.6 auto: 40.9 combined, 47.9 extra urban, 33.2 urban.
>
> For the 1.4 diesel the two sets of figures are identical for both manual 
> and auto:
> 56.5 combined, 62.8 extra urban, 48.7 urban.
>
>
> As an auto driver myself this is the first time that I have seen an 
> automatic (particularly a diesel auto) that gives the same mpg as the 
> manual.  Usually there is a fuel penalty of around 2 - 3 mpg for petrol 
> autos and around 6 - 8 mpg for diesel autos. Often (as is the case with my 
> diesel auto) the increased consumption means higher CO2 output which 
> results in a higher tax band for the auto.
>
> So how do they do it?  Even the superb VAG 'DSG' gearbox (which is really 
> two manual gearboxes side by side) has a fuel penalty.  How have Toyota 
> produced this miracle?
>
> Ret.

Actually, after a bit of Googling I've found out the answer for myself. Not 
a conventional auto box (no torque converter) but rather a conventional 
manual box but with electronic actuator control of the clutch. Mixed 
reviews - can be a bit jerky, slow changes, etc. Apparently, drivers used to 
a manual gearbox often find the MMT gearbox an improvement, whereas those 
(like me) who are used to conventional auto boxes, find it has significant 
drawbacks.
Ah well......... !!

Ret.