On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:47:29 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

><snip>
>
>T5-R
>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)

In the UK a while back "that yellow blur" would have been followed by
a white blur with flashing blue lights on the roof & another T5-R
emblem on the rear. Caught me off guard the first time I saw one in
action.

 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:47:29 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

><snip>
>
>T5-R
>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)

In the UK a while back "that yellow blur" would have been followed by
a white blur with flashing blue lights on the roof & another T5-R
emblem on the rear. Caught me off guard the first time I saw one in
action.

 

In alt.autos.mitsubishi Full_Name <Email@address.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:59:00 +0100, "AB" <noway@nohow.com> wrote:

>>And you can park it anywhere.....
>>
>>"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>
>>> Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>> taste
>>> in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>> I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>> Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>> "found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>> tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>> on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>>>
>>> Getting back to the subject, I think an Abrams M1A2 Main Battle Tank is
>>> just the perfect thing for rush hour traffic. It is fairly fast and
>>> can clear a nice path through a traffic jam! Plus, it allows one
>>> to easily obtain free fuel since most gas station attendents will
>>> run away screaming when they see you drive up...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark

>Downside might be the ability to find a drive through window or drive
>through "car" wash that it would fit into well.

>an upside though is that I bet that the Saudi's & the rest of the "oil
>patch kids" would help finance folks in the US who want to buy one as
>commuter vehicles ;-)

I've read about people who do drive/pilot things like old tanks and warplanes.
When I went to the machine gun shoot and gunshow at **** Creek Kentucky,
there were some guys who have a 20mm (30mm?) rotary cannon mounted in
the back of what was obviously a military truck that must have weighed
several tons. Very impressive to watch them blow up old cars and
appliances that had some hidden sticks of dynamite hidden inside by
the rangemasters. Only problem is, there is a multi-year waiting list
to get a spot on the firing line at the **** Creek shoot, and you have
to be sorta rich to afford to fire most machine guns -- the little .22LRs
such as select-fire, supressed 10/22 clones being a notable exception.

Since a lot of carheads are also into things that go bang, I can highly
recommend visiting one of the two machine gun shoots held open to the
public each year. They are a blast! :-)

Getting back to the subject of commuter vehicles, I suppose an Apache or
Comanche attack helicopter might be sort of fun to fly. Finding a place
close to the office where one can land the thing could be problematic.
Maybe there would be enough room to store a dirt bike for the last part
of the trip inside the chopper...I don't really know.

Regards,
Mark

--
"No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra

 

In alt.autos.mitsubishi Full_Name <Email@address.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:59:00 +0100, "AB" <noway@nohow.com> wrote:

>>And you can park it anywhere.....
>>
>>"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>
>>> Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>> taste
>>> in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>> I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>> Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>> "found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>> tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>> on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>>>
>>> Getting back to the subject, I think an Abrams M1A2 Main Battle Tank is
>>> just the perfect thing for rush hour traffic. It is fairly fast and
>>> can clear a nice path through a traffic jam! Plus, it allows one
>>> to easily obtain free fuel since most gas station attendents will
>>> run away screaming when they see you drive up...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark

>Downside might be the ability to find a drive through window or drive
>through "car" wash that it would fit into well.

>an upside though is that I bet that the Saudi's & the rest of the "oil
>patch kids" would help finance folks in the US who want to buy one as
>commuter vehicles ;-)

I've read about people who do drive/pilot things like old tanks and warplanes.
When I went to the machine gun shoot and gunshow at **** Creek Kentucky,
there were some guys who have a 20mm (30mm?) rotary cannon mounted in
the back of what was obviously a military truck that must have weighed
several tons. Very impressive to watch them blow up old cars and
appliances that had some hidden sticks of dynamite hidden inside by
the rangemasters. Only problem is, there is a multi-year waiting list
to get a spot on the firing line at the **** Creek shoot, and you have
to be sorta rich to afford to fire most machine guns -- the little .22LRs
such as select-fire, supressed 10/22 clones being a notable exception.

Since a lot of carheads are also into things that go bang, I can highly
recommend visiting one of the two machine gun shoots held open to the
public each year. They are a blast! :-)

Getting back to the subject of commuter vehicles, I suppose an Apache or
Comanche attack helicopter might be sort of fun to fly. Finding a place
close to the office where one can land the thing could be problematic.
Maybe there would be enough room to store a dirt bike for the last part
of the trip inside the chopper...I don't really know.

Regards,
Mark

--
"No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra

 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jbydnQkFpaw-ROrcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
>
>
> Thomas Moats wrote:
> > "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:s9qdnexqXMNY_encRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Thomas Moats wrote:
> >>>> --
> >>>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> >>>> -- Unknown
> >>
> >> That's Yogi Berra.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Trouble following along? I did not post that.
>
> Actually, you did. My quote showed two levels deep for it, which meant that
> I said that you were quoting somebody else when you posted it. But I agree
> it would have been better if I had the attribution for the original poster
> as well. But then again, even he was quoting somebody.
>
> The other problem is that people started top posting to a bottom posting
> thread, which made it hard to follow, and you quoted somebody's signature,
> which is not necessary. I'd suggest you use Quotefix since you are using
> OE. That would have prevented this.
>
>

I did not post that quote. Period. I did not quote somebody's signature.

This is the text I posted.

"That all depends on your driving skill and tire selection. It does quite well
as
most RWD vehicles do on limited traction surfaces."

That is the only text I posted. The date of which is 10/17/2004 @ 10:14pm. That
post was to "Mark Gibson" and is as follows.

"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:ckv28u$vmk$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>
> You forget the main point to having an SUV to drive. It lets one
> driver over and crush people like you in their little wimpy econoboxs!
>
> Of course, that doesn't always work...as the guy who tried to run me off
> the road in his big 4x4 learned the hard way. I was perfectly willing to let
> him hit my 1990 Jeep Eagle Talon. I figured I'd come out of the wreck OK,
> and then force him to buy a nice new Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution when I
> took him to court! Too bad he was smart enough to realize I was not about
> to get out of his way, no matter how big his ugly truck was.
>
> New Rule: Never play chicken with a driver who is far crazier than you are,
> especially if he's greedy and has plenty of witnesses. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> P.S. Realistically, most SUV owners never drive them under "off-road"
> conditions, and probably couldn't do so if they wanted to. A few years
> ago, I had the amusing experience of driving my low-slugn Jeep Eagle Talon
> TSi AWD car all over Champaign, IL when the only other vehicles on the
> roads were cop cars (slipping and sliding all over the place), snow plows
> with loads of salt or sand, and a few adventurous 4WDrivers in pickups or
> SUVs. I was passing all of them, even the cops! Much fun!


>A Crown
> Victoria is *NOT* a good car to drive on snowy, icy roads...

That all depends on your driving skill and tire selection. It does quite well as
most RWD vehicles do on limited traction surfaces.

>
> Regards,
> Mark "How fast will this Corvette go? -- gotta experiment -- Oh, wow!" Gibson
>
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi AB <noway@nohow.com> wrote:
> >My suggestion for an SUV?
>
> >Drive it to a scrapyard...
>
> >Here in the UK the furthest most of them get offroad is going up the kerb
> >when mum drops the kids off at school...
> >The Welsh police even refer to them as W*nker tankers (make it rhyme...) as
> >the majority of drivers they encounter have severe attitude problems when it
> >comes to other road users.
> >Add to that the fact that here at least we don't get much snow, almost all
> >roads are sealed, they are less manoevaerable (ever seen the results of the
> >infamous elk test that caught Mercedes with their A series? SUVs do
> >worse....), harder to park and drink fuel faster than a jumbo jet (at
> >?82p/litre!) and they make no sense at all (apart from being a fashion
> >accessory - strange reason to buy a car!)
>
> >Seems to me the whole point of 4WD vehicles has been lost. The started out
> >as a rugged go anywhere vehicle that was so simple to maintain that if you
> >needed a piston and you were stuck in the middle of nowhere you could carve
> >one out of a tree branch and make it well enough to get you home. Modern
> >4WDs have so much electronics in them that you'd be scared to look for the
> >problem and even if you found it you wouldn't be able to fix it without
> >either special BMW/Mercedes/Volvo/whatever parts and tools or a degree in
> >electronic control systems and acccess to a chip fabrication plant.
>
> >Maybe there is more point to these vehicles in rural areas of the US but not
> >in cities... there they are like a fish out of water and as appropriate as a
> >Smart car in the desert.
>
>
> >"GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.NET> wrote in message
> >news:10mib3545vraoa0@corp.supernews.com...
> >> The PC crowd (and other goof *****) hate 'em, so lacking any analytical
> >> skills at all they make up nonsense (that they want to be true) about
> >> their
> >> owners being dumb red-necks or stupid women or wanting to destroy the
> >> earth
> >> (maybe even the universe) or wanting to crash into cars and chew them up
> >> or
> >> have small private parts or...you get it.
> >>
> >> The concept that people buy them because they like riding up high (better
> >> visibility) and the storage space and the 4WD (very nice in rain and snow)
> >> and the roominess and the ground clearance and the towing ability and the
> >> durability (usually frame-on construction) and the good resale and even
> >> the
> >> looks cannot penetrate the heavy bone of the PC crowd's skulls, so
> >> silliness
> >> is generated by the little walnut sized gray matter inside that thick
> >> skull.
> >>
> >> And yeah, SUV's definitely do have their down-sides, but owners know that
> >> and, on balance, still think they are a "good thing" to have. Or they sell
> >> the thing...to an eager buyer.
> >>
> >>
> >> George
> >> "JohnDoe" <jd@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:g3g1hvcn5sbe2fq84c1v038p0l5brkcqsm@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:41:09 -0700, MDT Tech? <ssauer4O@repairman.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Tony Hwang wrote:
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >> Only beef I have with SUV is most SUV drivers seem to be big time
> >>> >> idiots. Specially the female SUV drivers.
> >>> >> Tony
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Tony, they may think the same of you. You have probably formed that
> >>> >opinion by reading too much anti SUV post is all. When SUV's stop
> >>> >selling, they will stop making them.
> >>> FWIW:
> >>> SUVs account for half of all cars being sold, someone must like them
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Unknown

Now notice there are two lines of text with out >'s.? That would be my post a
reply to the above statement, you know the lines of text with the >'s? Get a
clue.

 

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jbydnQkFpaw-ROrcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
>
>
> Thomas Moats wrote:
> > "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:s9qdnexqXMNY_encRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Thomas Moats wrote:
> >>>> --
> >>>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> >>>> -- Unknown
> >>
> >> That's Yogi Berra.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Trouble following along? I did not post that.
>
> Actually, you did. My quote showed two levels deep for it, which meant that
> I said that you were quoting somebody else when you posted it. But I agree
> it would have been better if I had the attribution for the original poster
> as well. But then again, even he was quoting somebody.
>
> The other problem is that people started top posting to a bottom posting
> thread, which made it hard to follow, and you quoted somebody's signature,
> which is not necessary. I'd suggest you use Quotefix since you are using
> OE. That would have prevented this.
>
>

I did not post that quote. Period. I did not quote somebody's signature.

This is the text I posted.

"That all depends on your driving skill and tire selection. It does quite well
as
most RWD vehicles do on limited traction surfaces."

That is the only text I posted. The date of which is 10/17/2004 @ 10:14pm. That
post was to "Mark Gibson" and is as follows.

"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:ckv28u$vmk$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>
> You forget the main point to having an SUV to drive. It lets one
> driver over and crush people like you in their little wimpy econoboxs!
>
> Of course, that doesn't always work...as the guy who tried to run me off
> the road in his big 4x4 learned the hard way. I was perfectly willing to let
> him hit my 1990 Jeep Eagle Talon. I figured I'd come out of the wreck OK,
> and then force him to buy a nice new Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution when I
> took him to court! Too bad he was smart enough to realize I was not about
> to get out of his way, no matter how big his ugly truck was.
>
> New Rule: Never play chicken with a driver who is far crazier than you are,
> especially if he's greedy and has plenty of witnesses. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> P.S. Realistically, most SUV owners never drive them under "off-road"
> conditions, and probably couldn't do so if they wanted to. A few years
> ago, I had the amusing experience of driving my low-slugn Jeep Eagle Talon
> TSi AWD car all over Champaign, IL when the only other vehicles on the
> roads were cop cars (slipping and sliding all over the place), snow plows
> with loads of salt or sand, and a few adventurous 4WDrivers in pickups or
> SUVs. I was passing all of them, even the cops! Much fun!


>A Crown
> Victoria is *NOT* a good car to drive on snowy, icy roads...

That all depends on your driving skill and tire selection. It does quite well as
most RWD vehicles do on limited traction surfaces.

>
> Regards,
> Mark "How fast will this Corvette go? -- gotta experiment -- Oh, wow!" Gibson
>
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi AB <noway@nohow.com> wrote:
> >My suggestion for an SUV?
>
> >Drive it to a scrapyard...
>
> >Here in the UK the furthest most of them get offroad is going up the kerb
> >when mum drops the kids off at school...
> >The Welsh police even refer to them as W*nker tankers (make it rhyme...) as
> >the majority of drivers they encounter have severe attitude problems when it
> >comes to other road users.
> >Add to that the fact that here at least we don't get much snow, almost all
> >roads are sealed, they are less manoevaerable (ever seen the results of the
> >infamous elk test that caught Mercedes with their A series? SUVs do
> >worse....), harder to park and drink fuel faster than a jumbo jet (at
> >?82p/litre!) and they make no sense at all (apart from being a fashion
> >accessory - strange reason to buy a car!)
>
> >Seems to me the whole point of 4WD vehicles has been lost. The started out
> >as a rugged go anywhere vehicle that was so simple to maintain that if you
> >needed a piston and you were stuck in the middle of nowhere you could carve
> >one out of a tree branch and make it well enough to get you home. Modern
> >4WDs have so much electronics in them that you'd be scared to look for the
> >problem and even if you found it you wouldn't be able to fix it without
> >either special BMW/Mercedes/Volvo/whatever parts and tools or a degree in
> >electronic control systems and acccess to a chip fabrication plant.
>
> >Maybe there is more point to these vehicles in rural areas of the US but not
> >in cities... there they are like a fish out of water and as appropriate as a
> >Smart car in the desert.
>
>
> >"GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.NET> wrote in message
> >news:10mib3545vraoa0@corp.supernews.com...
> >> The PC crowd (and other goof *****) hate 'em, so lacking any analytical
> >> skills at all they make up nonsense (that they want to be true) about
> >> their
> >> owners being dumb red-necks or stupid women or wanting to destroy the
> >> earth
> >> (maybe even the universe) or wanting to crash into cars and chew them up
> >> or
> >> have small private parts or...you get it.
> >>
> >> The concept that people buy them because they like riding up high (better
> >> visibility) and the storage space and the 4WD (very nice in rain and snow)
> >> and the roominess and the ground clearance and the towing ability and the
> >> durability (usually frame-on construction) and the good resale and even
> >> the
> >> looks cannot penetrate the heavy bone of the PC crowd's skulls, so
> >> silliness
> >> is generated by the little walnut sized gray matter inside that thick
> >> skull.
> >>
> >> And yeah, SUV's definitely do have their down-sides, but owners know that
> >> and, on balance, still think they are a "good thing" to have. Or they sell
> >> the thing...to an eager buyer.
> >>
> >>
> >> George
> >> "JohnDoe" <jd@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:g3g1hvcn5sbe2fq84c1v038p0l5brkcqsm@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:41:09 -0700, MDT Tech? <ssauer4O@repairman.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Tony Hwang wrote:
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >> Only beef I have with SUV is most SUV drivers seem to be big time
> >>> >> idiots. Specially the female SUV drivers.
> >>> >> Tony
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Tony, they may think the same of you. You have probably formed that
> >>> >opinion by reading too much anti SUV post is all. When SUV's stop
> >>> >selling, they will stop making them.
> >>> FWIW:
> >>> SUVs account for half of all cars being sold, someone must like them
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Unknown

Now notice there are two lines of text with out >'s.? That would be my post a
reply to the above statement, you know the lines of text with the >'s? Get a
clue.

 

With the firepower that things got i think levelling a piec of ground to use
as a landing pad wouldn't be that difficult? Probably be a lot of fun too!


"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:cl9fsi$tpd$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi Full_Name <Email@address.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:59:00 +0100, "AB" <noway@nohow.com> wrote:
>
>>>And you can park it anywhere.....
>>>
>>>"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>>news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>>
>>>> Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>> taste
>>>> in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>> I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>> Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>> "found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos
>>>> still
>>>> tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>> on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to the subject, I think an Abrams M1A2 Main Battle Tank is
>>>> just the perfect thing for rush hour traffic. It is fairly fast and
>>>> can clear a nice path through a traffic jam! Plus, it allows one
>>>> to easily obtain free fuel since most gas station attendents will
>>>> run away screaming when they see you drive up...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mark
>
>>Downside might be the ability to find a drive through window or drive
>>through "car" wash that it would fit into well.
>
>>an upside though is that I bet that the Saudi's & the rest of the "oil
>>patch kids" would help finance folks in the US who want to buy one as
>>commuter vehicles ;-)
>
> I've read about people who do drive/pilot things like old tanks and
> warplanes.
> When I went to the machine gun shoot and gunshow at **** Creek Kentucky,
> there were some guys who have a 20mm (30mm?) rotary cannon mounted in
> the back of what was obviously a military truck that must have weighed
> several tons. Very impressive to watch them blow up old cars and
> appliances that had some hidden sticks of dynamite hidden inside by
> the rangemasters. Only problem is, there is a multi-year waiting list
> to get a spot on the firing line at the **** Creek shoot, and you have
> to be sorta rich to afford to fire most machine guns -- the little .22LRs
> such as select-fire, supressed 10/22 clones being a notable exception.
>
> Since a lot of carheads are also into things that go bang, I can highly
> recommend visiting one of the two machine gun shoots held open to the
> public each year. They are a blast! :-)
>
> Getting back to the subject of commuter vehicles, I suppose an Apache or
> Comanche attack helicopter might be sort of fun to fly. Finding a place
> close to the office where one can land the thing could be problematic.
> Maybe there would be enough room to store a dirt bike for the last part
> of the trip inside the chopper...I don't really know.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Yogi Berra

 

With the firepower that things got i think levelling a piec of ground to use
as a landing pad wouldn't be that difficult? Probably be a lot of fun too!


"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:cl9fsi$tpd$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi Full_Name <Email@address.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:59:00 +0100, "AB" <noway@nohow.com> wrote:
>
>>>And you can park it anywhere.....
>>>
>>>"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>>news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>>
>>>> Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>> taste
>>>> in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>> I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>> Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>> "found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos
>>>> still
>>>> tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>> on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to the subject, I think an Abrams M1A2 Main Battle Tank is
>>>> just the perfect thing for rush hour traffic. It is fairly fast and
>>>> can clear a nice path through a traffic jam! Plus, it allows one
>>>> to easily obtain free fuel since most gas station attendents will
>>>> run away screaming when they see you drive up...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mark
>
>>Downside might be the ability to find a drive through window or drive
>>through "car" wash that it would fit into well.
>
>>an upside though is that I bet that the Saudi's & the rest of the "oil
>>patch kids" would help finance folks in the US who want to buy one as
>>commuter vehicles ;-)
>
> I've read about people who do drive/pilot things like old tanks and
> warplanes.
> When I went to the machine gun shoot and gunshow at **** Creek Kentucky,
> there were some guys who have a 20mm (30mm?) rotary cannon mounted in
> the back of what was obviously a military truck that must have weighed
> several tons. Very impressive to watch them blow up old cars and
> appliances that had some hidden sticks of dynamite hidden inside by
> the rangemasters. Only problem is, there is a multi-year waiting list
> to get a spot on the firing line at the **** Creek shoot, and you have
> to be sorta rich to afford to fire most machine guns -- the little .22LRs
> such as select-fire, supressed 10/22 clones being a notable exception.
>
> Since a lot of carheads are also into things that go bang, I can highly
> recommend visiting one of the two machine gun shoots held open to the
> public each year. They are a blast! :-)
>
> Getting back to the subject of commuter vehicles, I suppose an Apache or
> Comanche attack helicopter might be sort of fun to fly. Finding a place
> close to the office where one can land the thing could be problematic.
> Maybe there would be enough room to store a dirt bike for the last part
> of the trip inside the chopper...I don't really know.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Yogi Berra

 

In alt.autos.mitsubishi Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>AB wrote:

>> And you can park it anywhere.....
>>
>>
>> "Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>> news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>
>>>Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>taste
>>>in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>"found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>>tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.

>T5-R
>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)

I do have a serious bias against Volvos. They tended to be one of the
cars favored by safety freaks for many years...now some are actually
sporty. The look on woman's face wthen I closed in on her taillights
doing about twice the 55MPH limit in my first RX-7 was precious. I was
amazed she didn't flip me the bird as I passed her! She was doing maybe
45MPH, at best. The driving conditions were pretty good, but she
seemed to be a very timid driver. (Yes, she did drive with the lights on,
even though that was uncommon back in 1985.)

--
"No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra

 

In alt.autos.mitsubishi Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>AB wrote:

>> And you can park it anywhere.....
>>
>>
>> "Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>> news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>
>>>Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>taste
>>>in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>"found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>>tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.

>T5-R
>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)

I do have a serious bias against Volvos. They tended to be one of the
cars favored by safety freaks for many years...now some are actually
sporty. The look on woman's face wthen I closed in on her taillights
doing about twice the 55MPH limit in my first RX-7 was precious. I was
amazed she didn't flip me the bird as I passed her! She was doing maybe
45MPH, at best. The driving conditions were pretty good, but she
seemed to be a very timid driver. (Yes, she did drive with the lights on,
even though that was uncommon back in 1985.)

--
"No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra

 

I was a bit sceptical about Volvos till I got one... Now (aside from mushy
handling) I think they're a great all rounder...

And mine (only a '99 T5) goes so well when you put your foot down its
brilliant! And the fact that here in the UK the police used to use them
means you can have a bit of fun on boring motorway journeys too.....

;-)


"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:cl9gcc$tpd$2@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>AB wrote:
>
>>> And you can park it anywhere.....
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>> news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>
>>>>Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>>taste
>>>>in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>>I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>>Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>>"found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>>>tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>>on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>
>>T5-R
>>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)
>
> I do have a serious bias against Volvos. They tended to be one of the
> cars favored by safety freaks for many years...now some are actually
> sporty. The look on woman's face wthen I closed in on her taillights
> doing about twice the 55MPH limit in my first RX-7 was precious. I was
> amazed she didn't flip me the bird as I passed her! She was doing maybe
> 45MPH, at best. The driving conditions were pretty good, but she
> seemed to be a very timid driver. (Yes, she did drive with the lights on,
> even though that was uncommon back in 1985.)
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Yogi Berra

 

I was a bit sceptical about Volvos till I got one... Now (aside from mushy
handling) I think they're a great all rounder...

And mine (only a '99 T5) goes so well when you put your foot down its
brilliant! And the fact that here in the UK the police used to use them
means you can have a bit of fun on boring motorway journeys too.....

;-)


"Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:cl9gcc$tpd$2@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
> In alt.autos.mitsubishi Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>AB wrote:
>
>>> And you can park it anywhere.....
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark Gibson" <gibson@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>>> news:cl74rj$8so$1@wildfire-pl.prairienet.org...
>>>
>>>>Well, with the exception of Volvos and Fords, you do seem to have good
>>>>taste
>>>>in cars. Maybe the extra 50 IQ points is not needed. :-)
>>>>I do like tricked out Ford Mustangs and it seems there are some nice
>>>>Volvo sports cars, but in general I think Ford is short for
>>>>"found on the road dead" and/or "fixed or repaired daily". Volvos still
>>>>tend to remind me of soccer mommies who have "Baby On Board" signs
>>>>on their cars and who drive annoyingly slowly.
>
>>T5-R
>>(aka - the hell was that yellow blur?)
>
> I do have a serious bias against Volvos. They tended to be one of the
> cars favored by safety freaks for many years...now some are actually
> sporty. The look on woman's face wthen I closed in on her taillights
> doing about twice the 55MPH limit in my first RX-7 was precious. I was
> amazed she didn't flip me the bird as I passed her! She was doing maybe
> 45MPH, at best. The driving conditions were pretty good, but she
> seemed to be a very timid driver. (Yes, she did drive with the lights on,
> even though that was uncommon back in 1985.)
>
> --
> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
> -- Yogi Berra

 

Thomas Moats wrote:
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jbydnQkFpaw-ROrcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Thomas Moats wrote:
>>> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:s9qdnexqXMNY_encRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Moats wrote:
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
>>>>>> -- Unknown
>>>>
>>>> That's Yogi Berra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trouble following along? I did not post that.
>>
>> Actually, you did. My quote showed two levels deep for it, which
>> meant that I said that you were quoting somebody else when you
>> posted it. But I agree it would have been better if I had the
>> attribution for the original poster as well. But then again, even he
>> was quoting somebody.
>>
>> The other problem is that people started top posting to a bottom
>> posting thread, which made it hard to follow, and you quoted
>> somebody's signature, which is not necessary. I'd suggest you use
>> Quotefix since you are using OE. That would have prevented this.
>>
>>
[snip]

>> --
>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
>> -- Unknown
>
> Now notice there are two lines of text with out >'s.? That would be
> my post a reply to the above statement, you know the lines of text
> with the >'s? Get a clue.

There it is again. You get a clue. It's exactly as I said. It appeared in
your quote two levels deep, which means you were quoting somebody else's
post.

 

Thomas Moats wrote:
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jbydnQkFpaw-ROrcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Thomas Moats wrote:
>>> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:s9qdnexqXMNY_encRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Moats wrote:
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
>>>>>> -- Unknown
>>>>
>>>> That's Yogi Berra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trouble following along? I did not post that.
>>
>> Actually, you did. My quote showed two levels deep for it, which
>> meant that I said that you were quoting somebody else when you
>> posted it. But I agree it would have been better if I had the
>> attribution for the original poster as well. But then again, even he
>> was quoting somebody.
>>
>> The other problem is that people started top posting to a bottom
>> posting thread, which made it hard to follow, and you quoted
>> somebody's signature, which is not necessary. I'd suggest you use
>> Quotefix since you are using OE. That would have prevented this.
>>
>>
[snip]

>> --
>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
>> -- Unknown
>
> Now notice there are two lines of text with out >'s.? That would be
> my post a reply to the above statement, you know the lines of text
> with the >'s? Get a clue.

There it is again. You get a clue. It's exactly as I said. It appeared in
your quote two levels deep, which means you were quoting somebody else's
post.

 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:58:53 -0700, "Hagrinas Mivali"
<remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>[snip]
>
>>> --
>>> "No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded."
>>> -- Unknown
><snip>
>There it is again. You get a clue. It's exactly as I said. It appeared in
>your quote two levels deep, which means you were quoting somebody else's
>post.
>

THIS is still going on??????????????

Sheesh.

Sorry but let's get back to bitching about how shoddy the Chinese,
North Korean's, Chryslers, Fords, Toyoyo's etc, etc are...