Best solder free electrical connection

(((°> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years
working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

Which was the first wave of European Brain Drain.


You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.
 
salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

Teflon in his beer?
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:54 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:06:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:



"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?


Chuck Yeager, Bell X-1, Muroc Dry Lake, Mojave desert, California,
USA, October 14, 1947
The first successfull manned supersonic flight in history.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"
Agreed. ...just wanted to set the record straight before the Europeons came
unglued, again.
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?
No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.
 
On 8/23/2010 10:49 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/23/2010 2:28 PM, john hamilton wrote:
"Paul"<23023@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58njF43gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 19/08/2010 04:46, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Paul wrote:

On 19/08/2010 01:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/18/2010 6:33 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hmat$blj$2@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/18/2010 4:17 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hhb1$np$1@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/16/2010 12:43 PM, john hamilton wrote:
I have to connect this AAA battery holder to a toy. Although I
have a
small
soldering iron, my soldering skills are poor. I can see myself
easily
melting all the plastic around the contacts before I can get
anything to
stick to the tabs. (The part of the tabs with the small hole will
bend
upwards giving some clearence).

http://tinypic.com/r/iqx3pf/4

My immediate plan is to poke a few strands of wire through the
holes
in the
connection tabs twist and then apply some nail varnish to stop it
unwinding.
Since its a toy it does not need to be totally foolproof.

If anyone had any ideas that were a bit more sophisticated I would
be
gratefull. Thanks.



If you are familiar with faston connectors, you can trim the
terminals with scissors or wire cutters so a connector will
slip on to them. The connectors are available in many sizes
with the 1/4" being the most common. I believe The Shack,
formally Radio Shack carries several sizes. Here's a link
to a manufacturer that produces many types so you can see
what I'm referring to:

http://www.etco.com/category.php?cat=18&div=ep&l=e

Excuse me, but is the OP a Septic or English ?

If he/she/it is English, it's bugger all use pointing them at Septic
outlets, is it?



I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are writing
about. Could you find someone to translate it into American?

Septic tank = yank

duh - colonials



Um, the cultural education is nice but what's it got to do
with electrical connections to a battery holder? Bizarre is
fun but at least I try to keep my jokes within the subject
matter being discussed. :cool:
TDD
It was... Radio Shack used to have UK outlets (but seemed to have
vanished), but the link above was certainly for their US replacement...

Its a long way to go for a battery holder..

Yes. All the way to your mail box. Of course, that may require you
to get out of your chair and actually walk.

And pay three times the value in shipping and taxes

=============================================================================

Many thanks to all. The push on brass connectors are a welcome solution,
many thanks. I can easily buy those at Maplins.

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins. A few hundred years ago in
order to deal with body lice, ladies would shave their lower private parts.
Since this was deamed un-attractive, they could buy small triangular wigs
which were called...you guessed it Merkins. Please dont let the low-lifes
get you down, we have as many here as you have there. And they just love the
internet.



Teasing is part of the Usenet experience, if we didn't like you we
wouldn't even respond to you. You get a bunch of guys together and
they are going to throw jabs at each other and kid around. It's
basically what we call horseplay. It's like those celebrity roasts
that are shown on TV, some of the most horrible and vile insults
are thrown about by friends. :cool:


And if the 'friends' go too far, you throw them out! ;-)
The only time I've seen that happen is when someone attacks the family
or children of a nasty poster. I'll pounce and tell them to leave the
uninvolved folks out of it. One particularly foul individual posted a
farewell to his grandmother who had just passed away and a rival started
making fun of the late old woman. I let him know real quick it was in
bad taste and to direct his anger at Mr. Nasty and not someone who was
defenseless. There is such a thing as propriety.

TDD
 
john hamilton <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote:

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins.
Well no, they were known as Merkins long before the the term "amearkin"
and you seem to be a tedious, humourless twot.

Go off and play with the Shermans they seem your sort of people.
 
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WoednSxKVLEIce_RnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was
Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy. Tube
electronics and crude plastics. Do you have anything useful to say?

They were both more or less the same.
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.


They built bigger engines, typical of Russian designs. Scale up
something, then everthing else needed the same.
You don't know much do you?
They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.

They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more thrust
available from their better engines.



Did you know that when the US military launched a shuttle they didn't have
boosters with O rings in them?
This was because they were better without the O rings but cost more.
NASA were cheapskates.
NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.


Proof?
 
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jnpvv3.198fblx1re55oiN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
john hamilton <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote:

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could
say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they
became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins.

Well no, they were known as Merkins long before the the term "amearkin"
and you seem to be a tedious, humourless twot.

Go off and play with the Shermans they seem your sort of people.
=============================================================================

you're wrong as usual
 
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

The Concorde was not successful.
It was... for what it did...
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.
So, how much money has the space shuttle made?
 
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.
I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:38 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
<mhywatt@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years
working in that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't able to compete
with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Errr never mind TMI.
He was drinking heavily, like you, Meatpuff.
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:26:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.
He was drinking copious quantities of vodka in those days, and he
wasn't all that funny in person. In fact, he was quite rude and
unpleasant. His then wife, Harriet, however was a sweetheart, and some
of his friends were fun to be around.
 
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?
He didn't drink beer.

Orange juice in his Vodka.
 
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

The Concorde was not successful.
It was... for what it did...
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.
So, how much money has the space shuttle made?

Dumbass. The shuttle isn't a commercial service. Go back to your
old RV and sleep it off.
 
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i4uqlg$k7r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
their rockets better.

Where do you get this?
Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.
The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.
It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure
rate, not even the shuttle.
They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident,
they knew they were pushing their luck.
 
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i4uqlg$k7r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
their rockets better.

Where do you get this?
Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the
fuel in fast enough.
They did this by fitting big pumps.
Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it,
something NASA said wasn't possible.
It saved weight and gave more thrust.
What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.
The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.
It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure
rate, not even the shuttle.
They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident,
they knew they were pushing their luck.
 
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WoednSxKVLEIce_RnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

"dennis@home" wrote:


Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy. Tube
electronics and crude plastics. Do you have anything useful to say?

They were both more or less the same.
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.


They built bigger engines, typical of Russian designs. Scale up
something, then everthing else needed the same.

You don't know much do you?

Do you know anything? Have you ever seen their tools, or how about
the engines they built for their cargo ships.


They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up.
The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.

They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more thrust
available from their better engines.

Really? Do you always state the ovbvious? Their first rockets were
smaller than the US rockets so they didn't need the additional thrust.


Did you know that when the US military launched a shuttle they didn't have
boosters with O rings in them?
This was because they were better without the O rings but cost more.
NASA were cheapskates.

NASA had budget restrictions.


NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.


Proof?
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:54 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:06:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:



"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?


Chuck Yeager, Bell X-1, Muroc Dry Lake, Mojave desert, California,
USA, October 14, 1947
The first successfull manned supersonic flight in history.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"

Agreed. ...just wanted to set the record straight before the Europeons came
unglued, again.

Unfortunately, some of them were 'never' glued. They make the rest
look bad with their constant, mindless ranting. :(
 
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
royal families.

I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
standards.

Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.

Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
china wants its cash back.

And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.

More mindless ranting from the burnt out hippie alcoholic. You might
as well stop setting followup-to: to alt.flame, asshole. I know you
think you're smart, but you've burnt out too many neurons with the pot
and other drugs.
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.

From the way he looks, it looks like he hasn't been 'regular' in 30
years. ;-)
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top