>>After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old >>bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my >>leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked >>train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the >>UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
>Did you get the email I sent you? I cc'd Adie and she claimed it never >reached her so if you didn't receive it either I'll get it sorted.
Just arrived, I didn't get the first one but I've got a mail from you 18:18 this evening. I'll read & reply in a bit.
bo...@despammed.com wrote: >On 9 May 2008 14:28:16 GMT in uk.rec.motorcycles, Buzby says:
>>Boots wibbled:
>>> I considered taking the SO Bonneville, however, I want to get there >>> and back with minimum hassle so it will almost certainly be the >>> sprint.
>>If it's anything like my old one you'd never get there, let alone back.
>Good point, well presented.
If its in reasonable condition and you ride it like its an *old bike*, there shouldn't be anything other than tweaking needed, surely?
Steady 65, chill out, no worries... unless it happens to be a bit neglected. --
>>>After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old >>>bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my >>>leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked >>>train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the >>>UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
>>Did you get the email I sent you? I cc'd Adie and she claimed it never >>reached her so if you didn't receive it either I'll get it sorted.
>Just arrived, I didn't get the first one but I've got a mail from you >18:18 this evening. I'll read & reply in a bit.
>>On 9 May 2008 14:28:16 GMT in uk.rec.motorcycles, Buzby says:
>>>Boots wibbled:
>>>> I considered taking the SO Bonneville, however, I want to get there >>>> and back with minimum hassle so it will almost certainly be the >>>> sprint.
>>>If it's anything like my old one you'd never get there, let alone back.
>>Good point, well presented.
>If its in reasonable condition and you ride it like its an *old bike*, >there shouldn't be anything other than tweaking needed, surely?
I had one when they were new, OK a 750 and the current one is a 650 but they were far from reliable then. It does look a bit of a shed but mechanically it's as good as they get - which ain't great.
>Steady 65, chill out, no worries... unless it happens to be a bit >neglected.
Steady 65 for a few hours and lots of bits will fall off, trust me on this, no matter how well bolted together things are they *will* vibrate loose.
bo...@despammed.com wrote: >Steady 65 for a few hours and lots of bits will fall off, trust me on >this, no matter how well bolted together things are they *will* >vibrate loose.
Champ wrote: > On Fri, 09 May 2008 17:11:34 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >> drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> saying >> something like:
>>> Mind you, do you know how many people were died from radiation after >>> the 5 or so original fire-fighters snuffed it? Zero. Do you know >>> how many 'additional' cancers have been attributed to it in Ukraine? >>> Zero. Do you know how many defects have been found in animals in >>> the exclusion zone? Zero.
>> Imo, it's still too soon to draw conclusions like that.
>>> Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
>> If you buy that line, you're swallowing the nuke lobby's gropapanda.
> Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
> The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived > from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was > no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that > the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. > The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the > impact is in fact much lower.
I'm the dying proof that radiations isn't so bad..... unless you ingest it
Boots wrote: > After talking with Andy last week Chimay sounded like a fun idea, old > bikes, strong beer and luxurious 5* accommodation. I've just had my > leave confirmed for the Friday & Monday 18/21 July. Not yet booked > train/ferry, so who's going and when? What's the score for finding the > UKRM contingent in a campground full of drunken reprobates?
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> saying something like:
>>>Radiation: not nearly as nasty as people think it is.
>>If you buy that line, you're swallowing the nuke lobby's gropapanda.
>Actually, I got it all from a Horizon programme.
>The think is, the graph of radiation vs cancer risk is all derived >from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses there were high, there was >no data at the low doses end - the working assumption has been that >the relationship can be extrapolated in a straight line down to zero. >The Chernobyl data is suggesting that below a certain threshold, the >impact is in fact much lower.
There *might* be something to that, but I'll reserve judgement until more figures are in. I'm not anti-nuke, and I would like to see safe, clean Nu Kleer power being generated in a responsible manner. Nothing has yet been done to meet the challenge of long-term storage or obliteration of nuclear waste, though, and that's a biggie.
<cue darsy and rail-gun to the sun>
I wish they'd pull their fingers out and get on with fusion.
Of course, every new nuke facility would have to be surrounded by armed rent-a-cops 24/7 because of the world situation, but that's not new. -- Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
"It's a moron working with power tools. How much more suspenseful can you get?" - House
