On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>
>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>
>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>
>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>
>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>
>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.

It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:38:10 +0100, Janet > wrote:

> In article >, says...
> >
> > On 4/6/2016 1:55 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:18:39 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 4/6/2016 12:49 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:43:25 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I was also impressed with the diesel engine car we rented. It had a
> > >>>> small 2.0L engine but it felt like a large V8. It had a torque curve as
> > >>>> flat as Idaho and gave us 40+ MPG to boot. Brilliant!
> > >>>
> > >>> They are definitely the future for passenger cars, very popular in
> > >>> Europe and now Australia.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> These are the final days of the piston IC engines. Everything will be
> > >> electric in a few years. OTOH, the modern IC engine is pretty much the
> > >> highest pinnacle of engine design i.e., piston engines are going out
> > >> with a big bang.
> > >
> > > I waiting for you to pipe up, surprised you didn't mention those silly
> > > twitter or google cars (or whatever they are .
> > >
> > > What you describe is indeed the future, albeit much further into the
> > > future than turbo diesel engines. Electric engines are simply not
> > > practical for most of the world at this stage.
>
> They are surely extremely practical in cities and urban areas where
> most journeys are short and engine emissions are a major health issue.

IMO, they make wonderful cars for city driving and commuting.
>
> EV's may also be extremely useful for local travel in remote areas
> where wet-fuel imports are extremely expensive; like the Scottish island
> I live on. There are two public charging points for electric cars here.
> One charge supposedly enables a journey of 100 miles; more than enough
> to drive right round the island (56 miles).
>
> Janet UK
>
The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
one at this point though. A hybrid would be perfect though. 99 mpg
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...n=sbs&id=37129

--

sf

On 4/7/2016 5:06 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:38:10 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> On 4/6/2016 1:55 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:18:39 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2016 12:49 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:43:25 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was also impressed with the diesel engine car we rented. It had a
>>>>>>> small 2.0L engine but it felt like a large V8. It had a torque curve as
>>>>>>> flat as Idaho and gave us 40+ MPG to boot. Brilliant!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are definitely the future for passenger cars, very popular in
>>>>>> Europe and now Australia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the final days of the piston IC engines. Everything will be
>>>>> electric in a few years. OTOH, the modern IC engine is pretty much the
>>>>> highest pinnacle of engine design i.e., piston engines are going out
>>>>> with a big bang.
>>>>
>>>> I waiting for you to pipe up, surprised you didn't mention those silly
>>>> twitter or google cars (or whatever they are .
>>>>
>>>> What you describe is indeed the future, albeit much further into the
>>>> future than turbo diesel engines. Electric engines are simply not
>>>> practical for most of the world at this stage.
>>
>> They are surely extremely practical in cities and urban areas where
>> most journeys are short and engine emissions are a major health issue.
>
> IMO, they make wonderful cars for city driving and commuting.
>>
>> EV's may also be extremely useful for local travel in remote areas
>> where wet-fuel imports are extremely expensive; like the Scottish island
>> I live on. There are two public charging points for electric cars here.
>> One charge supposedly enables a journey of 100 miles; more than enough
>> to drive right round the island (56 miles).
>>
>> Janet UK
>>
> The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
> which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
> one at this point though.

But you really could:

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s...oast-trip.html

June 2014
They've made it! 67.5 hours, about 8h less than the Tesla team (76h).

https://twitter.com/Edmunds_Test/sta...74477711392768

https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

http://www.teslarati.com/interactive...ercharger-map/


> A hybrid would be perfect though. 99 mpg
> https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...n=sbs&id=37129

Tesla is cheaper - free electricity at the Superchargers!

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>
>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>
>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>
>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>
>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>hold the new plebiscite?

Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.

Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
cause little change.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>will kick your ass!
>>
>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>
>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.

Apparently she has not been replacing them for several years now
because she figures she can't live long enough for them, like that
attitude.

On 4/5/2016 5:30 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's like taking half a shower or half a haircut. I just can't abide by that.
>
> Not unless you're in the habit of putting dishes filled with crud in
> the dishwasher. I rinse mine off and everything is off except the
> residual grease. I figure a pre-rinse, wash and final rinse is all it
> needs and with white vinegar in place of Jet Dry, I'm absolutely
> correct. Added bonus: the dishwasher doesn't go for hours.
>
Absolutely. I don't want the dishwasher to run for hours on end. I
also don't fill it with stuff that is caked with crud and expect the
dishwasher to sprout hands holding a scrubby and wash each individual
plate. And yes, white vinegar in the rinse cycle works just fine.
White vinegar is useful for a lot of things. I use it to clean jewelry
(with a splash of water and a dash of baking soda).

Jill

On 4/6/2016 3:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 8:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>>
>> OTOH, an electric car would be easy as pie to work on. I have to
>> disassemble the front of my car to change out my turbo diverter valve
>> and power steering cooler - none of which would be on an electric car.
>> I'll be happy not to have to get on the floor and get under my car ever
>> again. Life will be beautiful.
>
>
> Electrics have some pluses, but for me they are still in the toy stage
> of practicality. Getting better though..
>
> I'd like to know how the climate control is. Does it keep me toasty
> warm when it is -5 and cool when 105? That takes a lot of power.

Heating an cooling is a problem with electric cars. I can't say much
about that part. Personally, I'd open a window if it was too hot. For
colder climes, they could probably include some skiing jackets as part
of the OEM equipment.

On 4/7/2016 7:29 PM, carnal asada wrote:

>>>
>> The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
>> which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
>> one at this point though.
>
> But you really could:
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s...oast-trip.html
>
>
> June 2014
> They've made it! 67.5 hours, about 8h less than the Tesla team (76h).
>
> https://twitter.com/Edmunds_Test/sta...74477711392768
>

If I had two cars I'd consider one. It still would be tight as I often
do 250 to 260 miles trips one way. Easily done if I stop for a partial
charge. I'd still have to check the actual range when using heat or AC.

I'm not about to use it for cross country though. The route shown may
be OK, but it is not one I've ever taken more than part way.. I hope to
do it again this year.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>
>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>
>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>
>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>
>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>
>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.

And yet, he is an interesting person. Cirencester Ag College sends
students to work at Highgrove because he does have a very well run
totally organic farm, started long before 'organic' was the popular
thing. It was that concept that had the press yapping about him
'talking to his plants' -

He also as Duchy of Cornwall runs excellent little shops with all
profits to helping inner city kids. I used to always visit one as a
quick one stop shopping trip to get pressies to bring home. Neat ideas
at reasonable prices.

He also turned the architectural refrain around from glass boxes to
more interesting construction, look at the variety now in London. So
don't dismiss him, there's more to him than meets the eye. Bloody
awful jug handle ears, he could have well afforded some plastic
surgery

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:57:27 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>
>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>
>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>
>Apparently she has not been replacing them for several years now
>because she figures she can't live long enough for them, like that
>attitude.

Good to see.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>
>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>
>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>
>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>
>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>hold the new plebiscite?

Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:51:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>

>
>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>hold the new plebiscite?
>
>Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>
>Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>cause little change.

It's the same here in Canada but I do have some concerns that if we do
away with the monarchy, the replacement would cost far more than the
Queen costs per head Canadian, imagine it would be the same in
Australia.

We have a Governor General as the Queens rep, he/she is appointed by
the sitting government but as ever, it's a patronage thing and already
costly. So if that position becomes more significant, heaven only
knows where the cost would go. Assume it is similar in Australia.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:05:36 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>
>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>
>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>
>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>
>And yet, he is an interesting person. Cirencester Ag College sends
>students to work at Highgrove because he does have a very well run
>totally organic farm, started long before 'organic' was the popular
>thing. It was that concept that had the press yapping about him
>'talking to his plants' -
>
>He also as Duchy of Cornwall runs excellent little shops with all
>profits to helping inner city kids. I used to always visit one as a
>quick one stop shopping trip to get pressies to bring home. Neat ideas
>at reasonable prices.
>
>He also turned the architectural refrain around from glass boxes to
>more interesting construction, look at the variety now in London. So
>don't dismiss him, there's more to him than meets the eye.

That's one thing I'll give old Charley Boy, I like his POV on
architecture and organic gardening.

>Bloody
>awful jug handle ears, he could have well afforded some plastic
>surgery

I met him and his missus briefly back in (I think) it was 1984 in
Darwin. I never noticed the ears at the time Quite the oddball
family, personality-wise, when you look closer. At the risk of being
condemned, I have to admit I find Prince Phillip's sense of humour
hilarious, it's *so* inappropriate and non-PC

On 4/7/2016 5:57 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>
>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>
>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>
> Apparently she has not been replacing them for several years now
> because she figures she can't live long enough for them, like that
> attitude.
>

Yes, she'd be best served kicking your evil, sharp-elbowed ass around...

On 4/7/2016 6:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 7:29 PM, carnal asada wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
>>> which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
>>> one at this point though.
>>
>> But you really could:
>>
>> http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s...oast-trip.html
>>
>>
>>
>> June 2014
>> They've made it! 67.5 hours, about 8h less than the Tesla team (76h).
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Edmunds_Test/sta...74477711392768
>>
>
> If I had two cars I'd consider one. It still would be tight as I often
> do 250 to 260 miles trips one way. Easily done if I stop for a partial
> charge. I'd still have to check the actual range when using heat or AC.

Not as much as you might think though.

And a nice 40 minute meal at a Supercharger stop will get it all back to
full.

> I'm not about to use it for cross country though. The route shown may
> be OK, but it is not one I've ever taken more than part way.. I hope to
> do it again this year.

I'd use that ap and freelance, that'd be the real fun.

On 4/7/2016 6:07 PM, wrote:
> Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?


STFU- WHORE!

On 4/7/2016 2:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 7:29 PM, carnal asada wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
>>> which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
>>> one at this point though.
>>
>> But you really could:
>>
>> http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s...oast-trip.html
>>
>>
>>
>> June 2014
>> They've made it! 67.5 hours, about 8h less than the Tesla team (76h).
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Edmunds_Test/sta...74477711392768
>>
>
> If I had two cars I'd consider one. It still would be tight as I often
> do 250 to 260 miles trips one way. Easily done if I stop for a partial
> charge. I'd still have to check the actual range when using heat or AC.
>
> I'm not about to use it for cross country though. The route shown may
> be OK, but it is not one I've ever taken more than part way.. I hope to
> do it again this year.
>

Teslas are fairly popular over here - I didn't know there were so many
people who could afford the 60 thousand or so price of the car. I could
use a electric car just fine since I only putter about this town. OTOH,
even charging up an electric car is going to be expensive since it's
$.36/KW on this rock. As it goes, any kind of car is going to be
expensive to run on this tiny rock. Lucky we don't go very far to get
from one place to another.

On 4/7/2016 8:02 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 5:30 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That's like taking half a shower or half a haircut. I just can't
>>> abide by that.
>>
>> Not unless you're in the habit of putting dishes filled with crud in
>> the dishwasher. I rinse mine off and everything is off except the
>> residual grease. I figure a pre-rinse, wash and final rinse is all it
>> needs and with white vinegar in place of Jet Dry, I'm absolutely
>> correct. Added bonus: the dishwasher doesn't go for hours.
>>
> Absolutely. I don't want the dishwasher to run for hours on end. I
> also don't fill it with stuff that is caked with crud and expect the
> dishwasher to sprout hands holding a scrubby and wash each individual
> plate. And yes, white vinegar in the rinse cycle works just fine. White
> vinegar is useful for a lot of things. I use it to clean jewelry (with
> a splash of water and a dash of baking soda).
>
> Jill


Put the cruddy stuff in and let it run. Saves water, saves your time
and in spite of the long run times saves energy. Use a good detergent.

Just get the big lumps off. Never more than a pssst under the faucet
for the really cruddy ones. Good machine, good detergent and dishes
will sparkle. Let the machine do the work, not you.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:02:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 4/5/2016 5:30 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That's like taking half a shower or half a haircut. I just can't abide by that.
>>
>> Not unless you're in the habit of putting dishes filled with crud in
>> the dishwasher. I rinse mine off and everything is off except the
>> residual grease. I figure a pre-rinse, wash and final rinse is all it
>> needs and with white vinegar in place of Jet Dry, I'm absolutely
>> correct. Added bonus: the dishwasher doesn't go for hours.
>>
>Absolutely. I don't want the dishwasher to run for hours on end. I
>also don't fill it with stuff that is caked with crud and expect the
>dishwasher to sprout hands holding a scrubby and wash each individual
>plate. And yes, white vinegar in the rinse cycle works just fine.
>White vinegar is useful for a lot of things. I use it to clean jewelry
>(with a splash of water and a dash of baking soda).
>
>Jill
Oh, man. Just today I put the greasy,smoky, sticky guts of my smoker
in the dishwasher. I selected Pots and Pans wash, Sani-Wash and Hi
temp rinse. I would have scrubbed for a couple of hours and still
would have not gotten the crud from the crevices. My dishwasher did
me proud. All the ick is gone. :-)
Janet US

On 07/04/2016 5:51 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>
>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>
>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>
>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>> hold the new plebiscite?
>
> Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>
> Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
> patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
> change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
> symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
> day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
> cause little change.
>
The problem is with what form of presidency to you replace it? The US
model can hardly give anyone confidence:-)
Graham

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:29:49 -0600, carnal asada > wrote:

> On 4/7/2016 5:06 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:38:10 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, says...
> >>>
> >>> On 4/6/2016 1:55 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:18:39 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 4/6/2016 12:49 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:43:25 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was also impressed with the diesel engine car we rented. It had a
> >>>>>>> small 2.0L engine but it felt like a large V8. It had a torque curve as
> >>>>>>> flat as Idaho and gave us 40+ MPG to boot. Brilliant!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They are definitely the future for passenger cars, very popular in
> >>>>>> Europe and now Australia.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are the final days of the piston IC engines. Everything will be
> >>>>> electric in a few years. OTOH, the modern IC engine is pretty much the
> >>>>> highest pinnacle of engine design i.e., piston engines are going out
> >>>>> with a big bang.
> >>>>
> >>>> I waiting for you to pipe up, surprised you didn't mention those silly
> >>>> twitter or google cars (or whatever they are .
> >>>>
> >>>> What you describe is indeed the future, albeit much further into the
> >>>> future than turbo diesel engines. Electric engines are simply not
> >>>> practical for most of the world at this stage.
> >>
> >> They are surely extremely practical in cities and urban areas where
> >> most journeys are short and engine emissions are a major health issue.
> >
> > IMO, they make wonderful cars for city driving and commuting.
> >>
> >> EV's may also be extremely useful for local travel in remote areas
> >> where wet-fuel imports are extremely expensive; like the Scottish island
> >> I live on. There are two public charging points for electric cars here.
> >> One charge supposedly enables a journey of 100 miles; more than enough
> >> to drive right round the island (56 miles).
> >>
> >> Janet UK
> >>
> > The new Tesla Model X Electric SUV has a range of 257 Miles, 92 MPGe -
> > which is more than adequate. I wouldn't try driving across the USA in
> > one at this point though.
>
> But you really could:
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s...oast-trip.html
>
> June 2014
> They've made it! 67.5 hours, about 8h less than the Tesla team (76h).
>
> https://twitter.com/Edmunds_Test/sta...74477711392768
>
> https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
>
> http://www.teslarati.com/interactive...ercharger-map/
>
>
> > A hybrid would be perfect though. 99 mpg
> > https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...n=sbs&id=37129
>
> Tesla is cheaper - free electricity at the Superchargers!

That's nice. But my concern about cross country driving (we meander)
right now is FINDING those super chargers and the amount of time it
takes to recharge. That's why I think a hybrid is better for long
distance driving. We did 9500 miles in 40 days and I know where we
drove, so my comment was not based in fantasy. It was hard enough
finding a real gas station approaching the Badlands from the West, let
alone somewhere to supercharge an electric vehicle.

--

sf

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:27:18 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> Teslas are fairly popular over here - I didn't know there were so many
> people who could afford the 60 thousand or so price of the car. I could
> use a electric car just fine since I only putter about this town. OTOH,
> even charging up an electric car is going to be expensive since it's
> $.36/KW on this rock. As it goes, any kind of car is going to be
> expensive to run on this tiny rock. Lucky we don't go very far to get
> from one place to another.

I still don't know how much a charge costs for any electric vehicle.
People either don't know (how is that?) or they are being cagey.
Electric isn't cheap, so I'd be more inclined to go for a non-hybrid
if I had solar panels and didn't have to pay PG&E prices for electric.

--

sf

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:02:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> White vinegar is useful for a lot of things. I use it to clean jewelry
> (with a splash of water and a dash of baking soda).

I'll try that, thanks.

--

sf

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:08:04 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:27:18 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> Teslas are fairly popular over here - I didn't know there were so many
>> people who could afford the 60 thousand or so price of the car. I could
>> use a electric car just fine since I only putter about this town. OTOH,
>> even charging up an electric car is going to be expensive since it's
>> $.36/KW on this rock. As it goes, any kind of car is going to be
>> expensive to run on this tiny rock. Lucky we don't go very far to get
>> from one place to another.
>
>I still don't know how much a charge costs for any electric vehicle.
>People either don't know (how is that?) or they are being cagey.
>Electric isn't cheap, so I'd be more inclined to go for a non-hybrid
>if I had solar panels and didn't have to pay PG&E prices for electric.

or how long it takes. I've seen some plugged in at the Ford dealer.
I've meant to ask but forgot.
Janet US

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:10:40 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:51:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>>Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>
>>Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>>patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>>change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>>symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>>day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>>cause little change.
>
>It's the same here in Canada but I do have some concerns that if we do
>away with the monarchy, the replacement would cost far more than the
>Queen costs per head Canadian, imagine it would be the same in
>Australia.
>
>We have a Governor General as the Queens rep, he/she is appointed by
>the sitting government but as ever, it's a patronage thing and already
>costly. So if that position becomes more significant, heaven only
>knows where the cost would go. Assume it is similar in Australia.

Yes, we also have a Governor General, and that is one aspect of our
link to the monarchy I'd love to see disappear ASAP. Ours was used
back in 1975 to dismiss our PM. Basically, it was a coup, all because
our then PM wasn't a 'team player' with the U.S.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:22:13 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:51:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>>Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>
>>Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>>patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>>change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>>symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>>day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>>cause little change.
>
>Yes, it's purely symbolic, but also about time in my opinion. Not that
>I have anything against the UK. And they won't try to stop it either.
>At most, they'll be surprised it took so long.

Yes, agreed.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:25:34 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 07/04/2016 5:51 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and she
>>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>> hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>> Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>
>> Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>> patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>> change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>> symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>> day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>> cause little change.
>>
>The problem is with what form of presidency to you replace it? The US
>model can hardly give anyone confidence:-)

Indeed, that is a good point. I would assume we would go with
something more European in nature. I would be extremely surprised if
we did follow the U.S model... any modern democracy would have rocks
in their head to want to emulate that, given the events of the past 40
years or so.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:38:34 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:08:04 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:27:18 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
> >
> >> Teslas are fairly popular over here - I didn't know there were so many
> >> people who could afford the 60 thousand or so price of the car. I could
> >> use a electric car just fine since I only putter about this town. OTOH,
> >> even charging up an electric car is going to be expensive since it's
> >> $.36/KW on this rock. As it goes, any kind of car is going to be
> >> expensive to run on this tiny rock. Lucky we don't go very far to get
> >> from one place to another.
> >
> >I still don't know how much a charge costs for any electric vehicle.
> >People either don't know (how is that?) or they are being cagey.
> >Electric isn't cheap, so I'd be more inclined to go for a non-hybrid
> >if I had solar panels and didn't have to pay PG&E prices for electric.
>
> or how long it takes. I've seen some plugged in at the Ford dealer.
> I've meant to ask but forgot.
>
Exactly. I don't want to be stuck for an hour or 4 waiting for my car
to recharge if I'm on a trip.


--

sf

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/2016 3:57 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>
>> D will, but I am a G&T girl myself)
>>
>>
>>
>
> OK then, all is forgiven. I'll be there shortly to join you.

<g> and you will be very welcome


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:32:54 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:23:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:24:10 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:46:41 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Oh! Well nobody in this house drinks tea, nor have we done so for many
>>>>>years)
>>>>
>>>>You must be a bit of an exception.
>>>>
>>>>After a day of hard work, Australians come home, their eyes light up
>>>>and they go "Time for a cuppa!" I'll never understand that.
>>>
>>>I'd humbly submit that they would be more likely to say "Time for a
>>>beer!" in that scenario. Just thinking about it now, it's more older
>>>Australians who are big on tea, the younger have shifted more to
>>>coffee and no tea. Would be interesting to see a graph of sales over
>>>the past say, 40 years.
>>>
>>>Me, I like all three. I do drink a LOT more coffee than tea, though.
>>
>>Yes, time for a beer sounds more contemporary.
>>
>>Or, since we're talking
>>about Australians, time for a joint
>
> Yes. A joint or a cone, along with the beer.

Cone?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen and
>>>>>>>>>>she
>>>>>>>>>>will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>>That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>
> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
> Or I think I heard the PM say that.

Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/04/2016 5:51 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen
>>>>>>>>>> and she
>>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>> hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>> Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>
>> Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>> patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>> change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>> symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>> day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>> cause little change.
>>
> The problem is with what form of presidency to you replace it? The US
> model can hardly give anyone confidence:-)

Yes, and think of all the power a president has, let alone the cost.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:38:34 -0600, Janet B >
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:08:04 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:27:18 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Teslas are fairly popular over here - I didn't know there were so many
>> >> people who could afford the 60 thousand or so price of the car. I
>> >> could
>> >> use a electric car just fine since I only putter about this town.
>> >> OTOH,
>> >> even charging up an electric car is going to be expensive since it's
>> >> $.36/KW on this rock. As it goes, any kind of car is going to be
>> >> expensive to run on this tiny rock. Lucky we don't go very far to get
>> >> from one place to another.
>> >
>> >I still don't know how much a charge costs for any electric vehicle.
>> >People either don't know (how is that?) or they are being cagey.
>> >Electric isn't cheap, so I'd be more inclined to go for a non-hybrid
>> >if I had solar panels and didn't have to pay PG&E prices for electric.
>>
>> or how long it takes. I've seen some plugged in at the Ford dealer.
>> I've meant to ask but forgot.
>>
> Exactly. I don't want to be stuck for an hour or 4 waiting for my car
> to recharge if I'm on a trip.
>

Google it. There is loads there about time and cost


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:28:33 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>>>would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>>>Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>>>
>>>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>>>
>>> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
>>> Or I think I heard the PM say that.
>>
>>Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>
> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>

I think so.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 11:32:30 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:28:33 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:07:03 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>>>>>hold the new plebiscite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely they could hold another plebiscite at any time ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but they think the end of the reign of Queen E. is a good moment.
>>>>> Or I think I heard the PM say that.
>>>>
>>>>Then you would end up with a President and really know about the cost.
>>>
>>> Is a president worse than a PM? Take the German system. Angela Merkel,
>>> is their PM, not their president. PM's can mess up too.
>>>
>>I think so.
>
> I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
> Angela

Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:09:20 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:02:01 -0400, jmcquown >
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/5/2016 5:30 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's like taking half a shower or half a haircut. I just can't abide by that.
>>>
>>> Not unless you're in the habit of putting dishes filled with crud in
>>> the dishwasher. I rinse mine off and everything is off except the
>>> residual grease. I figure a pre-rinse, wash and final rinse is all it
>>> needs and with white vinegar in place of Jet Dry, I'm absolutely
>>> correct. Added bonus: the dishwasher doesn't go for hours.
>>>
>>Absolutely. I don't want the dishwasher to run for hours on end. I
>>also don't fill it with stuff that is caked with crud and expect the
>>dishwasher to sprout hands holding a scrubby and wash each individual
>>plate. And yes, white vinegar in the rinse cycle works just fine.
>>White vinegar is useful for a lot of things. I use it to clean jewelry
>>(with a splash of water and a dash of baking soda).
>>
>>Jill
>Oh, man. Just today I put the greasy,smoky, sticky guts of my smoker
>in the dishwasher. I selected Pots and Pans wash, Sani-Wash and Hi
>temp rinse. I would have scrubbed for a couple of hours and still
>would have not gotten the crud from the crevices. My dishwasher did
>me proud. All the ick is gone. :-)
>Janet US

The virtue of hand washing dishes escapes me. I use the regular cycle
and never rinse anything before shoving in the dishwasher - I put the
pots and pans in too, the glass turntable from the microwave, oven
racks when cleaning the oven, it all comes out far better than I would
have done. I don't use the drying/heating cycle at all, they air dry
nicely. It's a very quiet dishwasher, my daughter had the same one
and I liked that aspect of it so bought it when I moved here. Not
expensive, a non elaborate Frigidaire.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:35:14 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"graham" > wrote in message
...
>> On 07/04/2016 5:51 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen
>>>>>>>>>>> and she
>>>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>>
>>>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>>> hold the new plebiscite?
>>>
>>> Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>>> patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>>> change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>>> symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>>> day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>>> cause little change.
>>>
>> The problem is with what form of presidency to you replace it? The US
>> model can hardly give anyone confidence:-)
>
>Yes, and think of all the power a president has, let alone the cost.

Bruce will come riding in on his horse, that's twice you've spoken
about cost!!

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Bruce" wrote:
> > I was expecting you to be a bit more outspoken about your good friend
> > Angela
>
> Do not get me started on that woman. She is the cause of all the
> immigration problems and ought to be hung!!!

Listen to you talking all bad about Julie's daughter.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

JK ;-D

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:44:19 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I just checked it out by filling it almost to the top, as high as you
> would without having to worry about it boiling over. It was 6 cups.
> That is as much as I need for the things I boil water for. It is more
> than enough for a pot of tea or to make coffee in the French press.

That's fine for coffee but not for tea. Tea needs the water to be at boiling point which this type of heater cannot manage.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:04:30 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 3:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 4/6/2016 8:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> OTOH, an electric car would be easy as pie to work on. I have to
> >> disassemble the front of my car to change out my turbo diverter valve
> >> and power steering cooler - none of which would be on an electric car.
> >> I'll be happy not to have to get on the floor and get under my car ever
> >> again. Life will be beautiful.
> >
> >
> > Electrics have some pluses, but for me they are still in the toy stage
> > of practicality. Getting better though..
> >
> > I'd like to know how the climate control is. Does it keep me toasty
> > warm when it is -5 and cool when 105? That takes a lot of power.
>
> Heating an cooling is a problem with electric cars. I can't say much
> about that part. Personally, I'd open a window if it was too hot.

When it's 105 F and 90% humidity, that might work fine until the
first stop light. Then it'd be like sitting in a sauna. For
those of us who dress professionally for work (especially men
in suits), it would be untenable.

> For
> colder climes, they could probably include some skiing jackets as part
> of the OEM equipment.

We wear heavy coats AND run the heater in the car. Don't forget
that -5 F is probably colder than the freezer compartment in your
fridge.

Cindy Hamilton