Proposed "Third Gear"

T

Torak

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #1

Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>

It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group suggesting
it, so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire. But they can't be
serious, can they?

Can they?

 

Bigstoo

New Member

Posts

298

Location

Republic of Yorkshire

• Sep 22, 2006

• #2

bad timing aint it, even if its in jest??

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #3

On or around Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:16:56 +0200, Torak <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
>
>It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group suggesting
>it, so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire. But they can't be
>serious, can they?
>
>Can they?

I sincerely hope not.

while there is scope for more "sensible" stuff about motors, the suggested
program would be crap - principally because the person designing it clearly
lacks what in the trade we call a "clue".

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

 

W

William Tasso

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #4

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:15:55 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:16:56 +0200, Torak
> <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
>> ...
>> Can they?
>
> I sincerely hope not.
>
> while there is scope for more "sensible" stuff about motors, the
> suggested
> program would be crap - principally because the person designing it
> clearly
> lacks what in the trade we call a "clue".

methinks that article was published two weeks later than scheduled

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

 

D

Derek

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #5

"Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
>
> It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group suggesting it,
> so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire. But they can't be
> serious, can they?
>
> Can they?

All you need to do is form a team of crackpots into an "organisation" of
indeterminate size, then give the news hungry media regular press releases
and hey presto you become a credible voice when ever a story breaks and they
need a quote. Ever wondered how the National Viewers Association became the
voice of the Television watchers despite having a tiny membership and no
support from the public at large as Alf would say "silly moo's"
Derek

 

T

Torak

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #6

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:16:56 +0200, Torak <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
>>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
>>
>>It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group suggesting
>>it, so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire. But they can't be
>>serious, can they?
>>
>>Can they?
>
>
> I sincerely hope not.
>
> while there is scope for more "sensible" stuff about motors, the suggested
> program would be crap - principally because the person designing it clearly
> lacks what in the trade we call a "clue".

I mean, the way it's written it feels like it should be satire. But if
they're trying to make Top Gear eco-friendly, I can't imagine them
spoofing themselves like that.

 

T

Torak

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #7

Derek wrote:
> "Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
>>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
>>
>>It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group suggesting it,
>>so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire. But they can't be
>>serious, can they?
>>
>>Can they?
>
> All you need to do is form a team of crackpots into an "organisation" of
> indeterminate size, then give the news hungry media regular press releases
> and hey presto you become a credible voice when ever a story breaks and they
> need a quote. Ever wondered how the National Viewers Association became the
> voice of the Television watchers despite having a tiny membership and no
> support from the public at large as Alf would say "silly moo's"

Aaah, now don't get me started. Ever heard of Mothers Against Guns and
their aversion to facts?

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Sep 22, 2006

• #8

Torak wrote:

|| Derek wrote:
||| "Torak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
||| news:[email protected]...
|||
|||| Don't know if this has been up before, but just read this:
||||
|||| <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4444763.stm>
||||
|||| It's written, apparently, by a representative for the group
|||| suggesting it, so it's difficult to see it as deliberate satire.
|||| But they can't be serious, can they?
||||
|||| Can they?
|||
||| All you need to do is form a team of crackpots into an
||| "organisation" of indeterminate size, then give the news hungry
||| media regular press releases and hey presto you become a credible
||| voice when ever a story breaks and they need a quote. Ever wondered
||| how the National Viewers Association became the voice of the
||| Television watchers despite having a tiny membership and no support
||| from the public at large as Alf would say "silly moo's"
||
|| Aaah, now don't get me started. Ever heard of Mothers Against Guns
|| and their aversion to facts?

And "Brake" - all three of them (or whatever). They seem to be consulted
whenever anything to do with road safety is on. Who are they, what is their
expertise, and who do they represent? Don't answer.

--
Rich
==============================

Take out the obvious to email me.

 

S

steve

Guest

• Sep 23, 2006

• #9

Torak wrote:

> Aaah, now don't get me started. Ever heard of Mothers Against Guns and
> their aversion to facts?

No, Go on. I used to be an occasional pistol shooter, but couldn't
afford it and gave up long before the ban, still I don't think they
should have been banned.

Steve

 

T

Torak

Guest

• Sep 23, 2006

• #10

steve wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>
>> Aaah, now don't get me started. Ever heard of Mothers Against Guns and
>> their aversion to facts?
>
> No, Go on. I used to be an occasional pistol shooter, but couldn't
> afford it and gave up long before the ban, still I don't think they
> should have been banned.

MAG got it into what they were pleased to call their heads that anything
that looked like a gun could be converted to fire live ammunition by a
toddler with a toothpick. This led to them releasing an advert showing a
bunch of kids running around in the forest with BB guns, shooting at
each other; one of the kids, however, has a real Browning Hi-Power, and
unwittingly kills all his mates. Obviously no one notices the difference
between an airsoft springer and live ammo.

There are so many things wrong with their entire stance, I don't know
where to start.

 

S

steve

Guest

• Sep 23, 2006

• #11

Torak wrote:
....has a real Browning Hi-Power, and
> unwittingly kills all his mates. Obviously no one notices the difference
> between an airsoft springer and live ammo.

.....and the chances of the little scrote actually being able to hit
anything with a Browning....

Steve

 

T

Torak

Guest

• Sep 24, 2006

• #12

steve wrote:
> Torak wrote:
> ...has a real Browning Hi-Power, and
>
>> unwittingly kills all his mates. Obviously no one notices the
>> difference between an airsoft springer and live ammo.
>
>
> ....and the chances of the little scrote actually being able to hit
> anything with a Browning....

Oh yes, that ad's a whole planetful of realism.