[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM UTC-10, Leo wrote:
> I don´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead battery with
> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does that to
> a battery.
> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I hemmed,
> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the smog
> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches off
> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by driving
> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. I´m working on
> it. I have till April second.
> The Lesson: Don´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you need to
> get a smog certificate. I didn´t know that. I do now.
>
> The last resort:
> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
> Drive-Cycle>
> Let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
>
> leo

Modern cars have computer controlled electrical systems that will map out fuel delivery that need to be relearned when the battery is disconnected. Typically, the memory will allow enough time for a battery change but not a dead battery. I frequently had to short out my Jeep battery cables to clear the computer memory. I figure that a 5 mile drive is good enough to set the idle and optimize drive-ability.
That Toyota drive cycle is pretty grueling. Luckily, we don't have emissions testing in Hawaii. I have lived in states that do and it is a heavy weight on one's mind. The good news is that once we get electric cars, smog checks will be a thing of the past.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 20:03:38 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Bruce" wrote in message ...
>
>On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:41:49 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 6:06:00 PM UTC-5, Leo wrote:
>>> I don´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead battery
>>> with
>>> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does that
>>> to
>>> a battery.
>>> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I
>>> hemmed,
>>> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the
>>> smog
>>> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
>>> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches
>>> off
>>> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by
>>> driving
>>> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. I´m working
>>> on
>>> it. I have till April second.
>>> The Lesson: Don´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you need
>>> to
>>> get a smog certificate. I didn´t know that. I do now.
>>>
>>> The last resort:
>>> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
>>> Drive-Cycle>
>>> Let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
>>>
>>> leo
>>
>>We got in my husband's car last Monday to go to the doctor; the battery
>>was dead. No idea what caused it; the battery was replaced last summer.
>>It hadn't been driven for about a week.
>>
>>We used my car for the trip, but I had to go to work. Next day at lunch we
>>jump-started it and let it run for a while, drove it around, etc. So far
>>so good.
>>I'm going to start taking his car to work every couple days.
>
>I don't use my pickup for many weeks sometimes and it still starts.
>There is a limit, though. Maybe around the 2 months mark. And it's a
>different climate here, of course.

I forgot, did you get a vaccination yet?

--
The real Bruce posts with NewsgroupDirect (see headers).

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:54:13 -0800 (PST), dsi1 wrote:

> On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM UTC-10, Leo wrote:
>> I don´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead battery with
>> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does that to
>> a battery.
>> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I hemmed,
>> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the smog
>> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
>> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches off
>> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by driving
>> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. I´m working on
>> it. I have till April second.
>> The Lesson: Don´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you need to
>> get a smog certificate. I didn´t know that. I do now.
>>
>> The last resort:
>> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
>> Drive-Cycle>
>> Let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
>>
>> leo
>
> Modern cars have computer controlled electrical systems that will map out fuel delivery that need to be relearned when the battery is disconnected. Typically, the memory will allow enough time for a battery change but not a dead battery. I frequently had to short out my Jeep battery cables to clear the computer memory. I figure that a 5 mile drive is good enough to set the idle and optimize drive-ability.
> That Toyota drive cycle is pretty grueling. Luckily, we don't have emissions testing in Hawaii. I have lived in states that do and it is a heavy weight on one's mind. The good news is that once we get electric cars, smog checks will be a thing of the past.

In the UK, if you buy an expensive car you pay an initial higher purchase
tax and a higher annual road tax (what we call an annual licence). Buy an
expensive electric car, such as the new Porsche, and both fees are waived.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/13/2021 10:17 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>> If a car is not used much the battery slowly lose its charge. Starting
>> it up to run a short errand takes quite a bit of juice and you won't
>> likely be recharging it enough to get it back up to snuff. Driving it
>> about 20 miles should be enough to get the charge back up.
>
> That could be a problem. Everything I routinely drive to is about 5 miles
> away. It's difficult to justify simply driving around, especially since I don't
> really consider driving to be recreational.
>
> Perhaps we should develop the "Sunday drive" habit.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

I like to drive. This afternoon I went to the drug store 4 miles away.
When I got home I put 25 miles on the car. If not for the pandemic
I'd put many more miles but it is a PITA to go places today. Not easy
for a lunch stop now.

Last time I went to my daughter's place the 30 mile distance to home was
over 50 miles. I'd randomly take a different exit off the highway even
though I have no idea where it goes.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 11:06:50 AM UTC-10, Graham wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:54:13 -0800 (PST), dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM UTC-10, Leo wrote:
> >> I don´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead battery with
> >> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does that to
> >> a battery.
> >> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I hemmed,
> >> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the smog
> >> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
> >> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches off
> >> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by driving
> >> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. I´m working on
> >> it. I have till April second.
> >> The Lesson: Don´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you need to
> >> get a smog certificate. I didn´t know that. I do now.
> >>
> >> The last resort:
> >> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
> >> Drive-Cycle>
> >> Let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
> >>
> >> leo
> >
> > Modern cars have computer controlled electrical systems that will map out fuel delivery that need to be relearned when the battery is disconnected.. Typically, the memory will allow enough time for a battery change but not a dead battery. I frequently had to short out my Jeep battery cables to clear the computer memory. I figure that a 5 mile drive is good enough to set the idle and optimize drive-ability.
> > That Toyota drive cycle is pretty grueling. Luckily, we don't have emissions testing in Hawaii. I have lived in states that do and it is a heavy weight on one's mind. The good news is that once we get electric cars, smog checks will be a thing of the past.
> In the UK, if you buy an expensive car you pay an initial higher purchase
> tax and a higher annual road tax (what we call an annual licence). Buy an
> expensive electric car, such as the new Porsche, and both fees are waived..

Some countries was trying to modernize their energy efficiency. Of course, expensive cars should pay sales tax and road tax but it's an incentive to encourage people to buy electric cars. A few years back, the state was paying for offices to use more efficient lighting. They changed my office fixtures to LEDs at no charge. I thought that was a pretty good deal - for me anyway.
My guess is that the switchover to electric cars will be faster than the experts believe i.e., in a few years, petrol and diesel cars will be seen as old-technology and undesirable. You know how people want stuff like push button and keyless starting? Same thing.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-13 4:33 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 11:06:50 AM UTC-10, Graham wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:54:13 -0800 (PST), dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM UTC-10, Leo wrote:
>>>> I don´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead battery with
>>>> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does that to
>>>> a battery.
>>>> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I hemmed,
>>>> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the smog
>>>> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
>>>> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches off
>>>> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by driving
>>>> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. I´m working on
>>>> it. I have till April second.
>>>> The Lesson: Don´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you need to
>>>> get a smog certificate. I didn´t know that. I do now.
>>>>
>>>> The last resort:
>>>> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
>>>> Drive-Cycle>
>>>> Let´s hope it doesn´t come to that.
>>>>
>>>> leo
>>>
>>> Modern cars have computer controlled electrical systems that will map out fuel delivery that need to be relearned when the battery is disconnected. Typically, the memory will allow enough time for a battery change but not a dead battery. I frequently had to short out my Jeep battery cables to clear the computer memory. I figure that a 5 mile drive is good enough to set the idle and optimize drive-ability.
>>> That Toyota drive cycle is pretty grueling. Luckily, we don't have emissions testing in Hawaii. I have lived in states that do and it is a heavy weight on one's mind. The good news is that once we get electric cars, smog checks will be a thing of the past.
>> In the UK, if you buy an expensive car you pay an initial higher purchase
>> tax and a higher annual road tax (what we call an annual licence). Buy an
>> expensive electric car, such as the new Porsche, and both fees are waived.
>
> Some countries was trying to modernize their energy efficiency. Of course, expensive cars should pay sales tax and road tax but it's an incentive to encourage people to buy electric cars. A few years back, the state was paying for offices to use more efficient lighting. They changed my office fixtures to LEDs at no charge. I thought that was a pretty good deal - for me anyway.
> My guess is that the switchover to electric cars will be faster than the experts believe i.e., in a few years, petrol and diesel cars will be seen as old-technology and undesirable. You know how people want stuff like push button and keyless starting? Same thing.
>

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-13 4:33 p.m., dsi1 wrote:

> Some countries was trying to modernize their energy efficiency. Of
> course, expensive cars should pay sales tax and road tax but it's an
> incentive to encourage people to buy electric cars. A few years back,
> the state was paying for offices to use more efficient lighting. They
> changed my office fixtures to LEDs at no charge. I thought that was a
> pretty good deal - for me anyway. My guess is that the switchover to
> electric cars will be faster than the experts believe i.e., in a few
> years, petrol and diesel cars will be seen as old-technology and
> undesirable. You know how people want stuff like push button and
> keyless starting? Same thing.
>

A few years ago Tesla sued the government of Ontario over the
elimination of its subsidy for electric vehicles. The previous Liberal
government had been offering up to $14,000 as an incentive to get people
to switch to electric vehicles. The new government (Conservative)
objected to the idea of large subsidies to people who could spent
$60,000 - $100,000 on a car.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-13 2:17 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2021 10:17 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>>> If a car is not used much the battery slowly lose its charge. Starting
>>> it up to run a short errand takes quite a bit of juice and you won't
>>> likely be recharging it enough to get it back up to snuff. Driving it
>>> about 20 miles should be enough to get the charge back up.
>>
>> That could be a problem.Â* Everything I routinely drive to is about 5
>> miles
>> away.Â* It's difficult to justify simply driving around, especially
>> since I don't
>> really consider driving to be recreational.
>>
>> Perhaps we should develop the "Sunday drive" habit.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
> I like to drive.Â* This afternoon I went to the drug store 4 miles away.
> Â*When I got home I put 25 miles on the car.Â* If not for the pandemic
> I'd put many more miles but it is a PITA to go places today.Â* Not easy
> for a lunch stop now.
>
> Last time I went to my daughter's place the 30 mile distance to home was
> over 50 miles.Â* I'd randomly take a different exit off the highway even
> though I have no idea where it goes.

A former neighbour would do this unintentionally and get lost. He was
diagnosed with dementia!

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 11:17:37 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2021 10:17 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> >> If a car is not used much the battery slowly lose its charge. Starting
> >> it up to run a short errand takes quite a bit of juice and you won't
> >> likely be recharging it enough to get it back up to snuff. Driving it
> >> about 20 miles should be enough to get the charge back up.
> >
> > That could be a problem. Everything I routinely drive to is about 5 miles
> > away. It's difficult to justify simply driving around, especially since I don't
> > really consider driving to be recreational.
> >
> > Perhaps we should develop the "Sunday drive" habit.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> I like to drive. This afternoon I went to the drug store 4 miles away.
> When I got home I put 25 miles on the car. If not for the pandemic
> I'd put many more miles but it is a PITA to go places today. Not easy
> for a lunch stop now.
>
> Last time I went to my daughter's place the 30 mile distance to home was
> over 50 miles. I'd randomly take a different exit off the highway even
> though I have no idea where it goes.

I once had the curious experience of not knowing where the heck I was while driving home. I had left my wife at the hospital and was driving the 6 miles to my house. I would all of a sudden not recognize the road. This happened several times. When I realized what was happening, I started focusing more - it didn't help.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

dsi1 wrote:

> I once had the curious experience of not knowing where the heck I was while driving home. I had left my wife at the hospital and was driving the 6 miles to my house. I would all of a sudden not recognize the road. This happened several times. When I realized what was happening, I started focusing more - it didn't help.


Natcherly...with your single - digit IQ what would else would one expect...???

--
Best
Greg

[OT] Don't do this!
 

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 3:08:55 PM UTC-5, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 10:08:34 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-13 4:41 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 6:06:00 PM UTC-5, Leo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We got in my husband's car last Monday to go to the doctor; the battery
>>>>> was dead. No idea what caused it; the battery was replaced last summer.
>>>>> It hadn't been driven for about a week.
>>>>>
>>>>> We used my car for the trip, but I had to go to work. Next day at lunch we
>>>>> jump-started it and let it run for a while, drove it around, etc. So far so good.
>>>>> I'm going to start taking his car to work every couple days.
>>>>>
>>>> If a car is not used much the battery slowly lose its charge. Starting
>>>> it up to run a short errand takes quite a bit of juice and you won't
>>>> likely be recharging it enough to get it back up to snuff. Driving it
>>>> about 20 miles should be enough to get the charge back up.
>>>
>>> That could be a problem. Everything I routinely drive to is about 5 miles
>>> away. It's difficult to justify simply driving around, especially since I don't
>>> really consider driving to be recreational.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should develop the "Sunday drive" habit.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> Five miles is PLENTY to charge the battery if it's in decent
>> condition and the alternator/regulator is working properly. If you
>> had a car with an ammeter installed, you'd see this. (Needle
>> dropping back to only a few amps.) Battery might not be 100%
>> charged, but it will be damn close after only a mile or two.
>
> Yeah, I think the trick will be to drive his car every couple of days
> while the cold weather persists.
>
> This is the coldest winter we've had since he retired. I think we're
> just out of practice.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

I take a 4 mile drive once a week, and that works, even with cheap
2 year walmart batteries. One mile would be enough.

If the battery is 5 years old, fails to crank, and you've driven in
the past week, throw it out yoose window for the crows, and buy a
new battery. Then post here to crow about your new battery :)

[OT] Don't do this!
 

dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 11:17:37 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/13/2021 10:17 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>> If a car is not used much the battery slowly lose its charge. Starting
>>>> it up to run a short errand takes quite a bit of juice and you won't
>>>> likely be recharging it enough to get it back up to snuff. Driving it
>>>> about 20 miles should be enough to get the charge back up.
>>>
>>> That could be a problem. Everything I routinely drive to is about 5 miles
>>> away. It's difficult to justify simply driving around, especially since I don't
>>> really consider driving to be recreational.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should develop the "Sunday drive" habit.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> I like to drive. This afternoon I went to the drug store 4 miles away.
>> When I got home I put 25 miles on the car. If not for the pandemic
>> I'd put many more miles but it is a PITA to go places today. Not easy
>> for a lunch stop now.
>>
>> Last time I went to my daughter's place the 30 mile distance to home was
>> over 50 miles. I'd randomly take a different exit off the highway even
>> though I have no idea where it goes.
>
> I once had the curious experience of not knowing where the heck I was while driving home. I had left my wife at the hospital and was driving the 6 miles to my house. I would all of a sudden not recognize the road. This happened several times. When I realized what was happening, I started focusing more - it didn't help.
>

That happened to me once. It was just gas. I lifted my left ass
cheek, farted, and drove on.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-6, Hank Rogers wrote:
>
> Sheldon Martin wrote:
> >
> > A big design
> > failure on vehicals is in not having a built-in timer that shuts off
> > the headlights within 10 minutes of turning off the motor. Headlights
> > can totally drain a battery in an hour.
> >
> And that's the way it was in the old days. Cars in the current
> century turn their headlights off if yoose forget, Popeye.
>
Plus remotely start the car. Remotely pop the trunk and remotely close it
as well. Remotely lower and raise the windows, remotely lock and unlock
the car. Let's not forget the personal alarm on the remote as well as many
other things the newer models do.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 20:03:38 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
>
>On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:41:49 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 6:06:00 PM UTC-5, Leo wrote:
>>> I donÀšÃ‚´t drive far anymore. My 2013 4wd Tacoma developed a dead
>>> battery
>>> with
>>> only 4700 miles on it. I mean as of now. Seven years of neglect does
>>> that
>>> to
>>> a battery.
>>> I have to get a yearly smog test, so I had to get a new battery. I
>>> hemmed,
>>> hawed and finally bit the bullet, changed the battery and drove to the
>>> smog
>>> station. The truck failed spectacularly!
>>> Once the battery is disconnected, the emission computer brain switches
>>> off
>>> and its data goes bye-bye. A new data set has to be established by
>>> driving
>>> the damned truck for way, way longer than to a smog station. IÀšÃ‚´m
>>> working
>>> on
>>> it. I have till April second.
>>> The Lesson: DonÀšÃ‚´t wait to change a modern vehicle battery until you
>>> need
>>> to
>>> get a smog certificate. I didnÀšÃ‚´t know that. I do now.
>>>
>>> The last resort:
>>> <https://www.smogtips.com/smog-questi...Toyota-Tacoma-
>>> Drive-Cycle>
>>> LetÀšÃ‚´s hope it doesnÀšÃ‚´t come to that.
>>>
>>> leo
>>
>>We got in my husband's car last Monday to go to the doctor; the battery
>>was dead. No idea what caused it; the battery was replaced last summer.
>>It hadn't been driven for about a week.
>>
>>We used my car for the trip, but I had to go to work. Next day at lunch
>>we
>>jump-started it and let it run for a while, drove it around, etc. So far
>>so good.
>>I'm going to start taking his car to work every couple days.
>
>I don't use my pickup for many weeks sometimes and it still starts.
>There is a limit, though. Maybe around the 2 months mark. And it's a
>different climate here, of course.

I forgot, did you get a vaccination yet?

==

Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the first
ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He hasn't been
told yet.

You?

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/12/2021 8:40 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-12 9:14 p.m., Stu Rawlings wrote:
>> On 2/12/2021 9:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> it's only a 10 minutes job to replace a battery.
>> Â*>
>> It's not as simple and easy on some of these vehicles
>> now as it used to be.
>
> It was a Taurus.Â* Unbolt the bracket, loosen the battery cable clamps.
> Take out the old battery, put the the new one in place, attach and
> tighten the clamps, bolt the bracket in place.Â*Â* It would take me longer
> to get the tools out and to return them than to change the battery.
>
> My motorcycle would be another matter.It took me more than a half hour
> to access the batteryÂ* in order to attach charging cables.
>
You're lucky it wasn't an Aries, or even worse, a Capricorn.

--
--Bryan
For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
tested on laboratory animals.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

Bruce wrote:
> A good thing you didn't have to be at a pickleball game in time.

I watched a few minutes of the current Australian Tennis tournament last
night. No audience at all in the bleachers. Smart move for the
Australians. Keep that Covid virus away. :)

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
> hasn't been told yet.

Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
months later.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>> hasn't been told yet.
>
> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
> months later.
>
Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
interval isn't a problem.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>
>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>> months later.
>>
> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
> interval isn't a problem.
>


without the "gold standard" studies.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

"Gary" wrote in message ...

On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
> hasn't been told yet.

Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
months later.

===

That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is better!

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 6:47 AM, Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> A good thing you didn't have to be at a pickleball game in time.
>
> I watched a few minutes of the current Australian Tennis tournament last
> night. No audience at all in the bleachers. Smart move for the
> Australians. Keep that Covid virus away.* :)
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0DN...&pbjreload=101

--
--Bryan
For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
tested on laboratory animals.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
>> hasn't been told yet.
>
> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
> months later.
>
> ===
>
> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is better!
>
>


They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.

You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
problem eased.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...

On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
>> hasn't been told yet.
>
> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
> months later.
>
> ===
>
> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is
> better!
>
>


They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.

You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
problem eased.

====

Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
that said they weren't necessary

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-14 9:04 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
>> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>
>>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>> months later.
>>>
>> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
>> interval isn't a problem.
>>
>
>
> without the "gold standard" studies.
>

The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this pandemic.
People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they were
talking about was more anecdotal than empirical. Early on they said
that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long term
care workers. Then they were a good idea. Then they started mandating
masks indoors. Science is supposed to be based on facts, so the
conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-14 10:03 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:

>
>
> They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
> and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
> this new story fits the logistics.Â* No studies cited.
>
> You know, masks were unnecessary.Â* Before they were, after the supply
> problem eased.

If I had read this before replying to your earlier comment I would not
have bothered. What was most annoying about the mandate to wear masks is
that frequent flip flopping on the need to wear masks, and the pro mask
people got really snotty with their "follow the science" rhetoric.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 7:29 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>
>> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>> months later.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is
>> better!
>>
>>
>
>
> They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
> and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
> this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
>
> You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
> problem eased.
>
> ====
>
> Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
> that said they weren't necessary
>
>
>
>


Of course you think that. But you are wrong. It was Dr. Fauci. You
know, the "gold standards" guy. LOL.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-6, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/14/2021 7:29 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary" wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
> >>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
> >>> hasn't been told yet.
> >>
> >> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
> >> months later.
> >>
> >> ===
> >>
> >> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is
> >> better!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
> > and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
> > this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
> >
> > You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
> > problem eased.
> >
> > ====
> >
> > Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
> > that said they weren't necessary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Of course you think that. But you are wrong. It was Dr. Fauci. You
> know, the "gold standards" guy. LOL.


BINGO...!!!

--
Best
Greg

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 8:07 AM, GM wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-6, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/14/2021 7:29 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
>>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>>> months later.
>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is
>>>> better!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
>>> and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
>>> this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
>>>
>>> You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
>>> problem eased.
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
>>> that said they weren't necessary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Of course you think that. But you are wrong. It was Dr. Fauci. You
>> know, the "gold standards" guy. LOL.
>
>
> BINGO...!!!
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>


OK, I will try this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAyz1coj44

Why do we say "Bingo" when we are searching for something.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-14 8:46 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-14 9:04 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>>
>>>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>>> months later.
>>>>
>>> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
>>> interval isn't a problem.
>>>
>>
>>
>> without the "gold standard" studies.
>>
>
> The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this pandemic.
> People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they were
> talking about was more anecdotal than empirical.Â* Early on they said
> that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long term
> care workers. Then they were a good idea.Â* Then they started mandating
> masks indoors.Â* Science is supposed to be based on facts, so the
> conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.

FFS!! Things change as you learn more!!!

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 9:30 AM, heyjoe wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:43:42 +0000
> in Message-ID: >
> S Viemeister wrote :
>
>> The WHO have agreed that the longer
>> interval isn't a problem.
>
> Is this the same WHO that gave China a pass as the country of origin for
> Covid-19?
>

No, they did not give China a pass. They said unlikely it was made or
leaked from the lab. Sadly, some people like to politicize the virus
rather than find facts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...eport-n1257105

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 8:16 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-14 8:46 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-14 9:04 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
>>>> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>>>> months later.
>>>>>
>>>> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
>>>> interval isn't a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> without the "gold standard" studies.
>>>
>>
>> The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this pandemic.
>> People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they were
>> talking about was more anecdotal than empirical.Â* Early on they said
>> that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long term
>> care workers. Then they were a good idea.Â* Then they started mandating
>> masks indoors.Â* Science is supposed to be based on facts, so the
>> conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.
>
> FFS!! Things change as you learn more!!!
>


True, but they did not learn anything about masks other than the supply
chain improved.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2021-02-14 11:16 a.m., Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-14 8:46 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-14 9:04 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
>>>> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>>>> months later.
>>>>>
>>>> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
>>>> interval isn't a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> without the "gold standard" studies.
>>>
>>
>> The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this
>> pandemic. People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they
>> were talking about was more anecdotal than empirical.Â* Early on they
>> said that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long
>> term care workers. Then they were a good idea.Â* Then they started
>> mandating masks indoors.Â* Science is supposed to be based on facts, so
>> the conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.
>
> FFS!! Things change as you learn more!!!


Yes, things change as you learn more. The thing is that it was never
science. It was just anecdotal. They initially followed the SOP for
dealing with infectious diseases by wearing masks and some suggested
that we all needed to wear masks. Then as Taxed and Spent pointed out,
there was a shortage of masks, and they said they weren't really needed
for the general public. It was more anecdotal than scientific. We were
told to "follow the science" when they were actually dealing with
anecdotes.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 2/14/2021 8:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-14 11:16 a.m., Graham wrote:
>> On 2021-02-14 8:46 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-14 9:04 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/2021 5:43 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
>>>>> On 14/02/2021 13:05, Gary wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>>>>>> first ones though!Â*Â* I get my second on the last week in April.Â* He
>>>>>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?Â* I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>>>>>> months later.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Different country, different rules. The WHO have agreed that the longer
>>>>> interval isn't a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> without the "gold standard" studies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this
>>> pandemic. People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they
>>> were talking about was more anecdotal than empirical.Â* Early on they
>>> said that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long
>>> term care workers. Then they were a good idea.Â* Then they started
>>> mandating masks indoors.Â* Science is supposed to be based on facts, so
>>> the conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.
>>
>> FFS!! Things change as you learn more!!!
>
>
> Yes, things change as you learn more. The thing is that it was never
> science. It was just anecdotal. They initially followed the SOP for
> dealing with infectious diseases by wearing masks and some suggested
> that we all needed to wear masks. Then as Taxed and Spent pointed out,
> there was a shortage of masks, and they said they weren't really needed
> for the general public. It was more anecdotal than scientific. We were
> told to "follow the science" when they were actually dealing with
> anecdotes.
>


It wasn't even anecdotal. It was just a flat out lie. Sort of a "gold
standard" of lies.

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 07:47:16 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> A good thing you didn't have to be at a pickleball game in time.
>
>I watched a few minutes of the current Australian Tennis tournament last
>night. No audience at all in the bleachers. Smart move for the
>Australians. Keep that Covid virus away. :)

The idiots started by allowing up to 25,000 people in. Then they found
2 or so covid cases in the city and put the city in lockdown. That was
also the end of the audience for the tennis. Which fool organises a
sports tournament when you still have some covid hanging around?

--
The real Bruce posts with NewsgroupDirect (see headers).

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:05:04 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the first
>ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He hasn't been
>told yet.
>
>You?

That's good. It hasn't started here yet, I believe. They start
sometime this month, but I won't be high on the list.

--
The real Bruce posts with NewsgroupDirect (see headers).

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:17:16 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 2/14/2021 9:30 AM, heyjoe wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:43:42 +0000
>> in Message-ID: >
>> S Viemeister wrote :
>>
>>> The WHO have agreed that the longer
>>> interval isn't a problem.
>>
>> Is this the same WHO that gave China a pass as the country of origin for
>> Covid-19?
>>
>
>No, they did not give China a pass. They said unlikely it was made or
>leaked from the lab. Sadly, some people like to politicize the virus
>rather than find facts.
>https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...eport-n1257105

Deplorables don't do facts. Facts get in the way of being deplorable.

--
The real Bruce posts with NewsgroupDirect (see headers).

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:29:41 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
>
>They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
>and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
>this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
>
>You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
>problem eased.
>
>====
>
> Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
>that said they weren't necessary

I'll always remember how Trump stood on that balcony, like the second
coming of Mussolini, and took his mask off in a dramatic Macho-Man
gesture. The deplorables were drooling when they saw that.

--
The real Bruce posts with NewsgroupDirect (see headers).

[OT] Don't do this!
 

"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...

On 2/14/2021 7:29 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2/14/2021 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 2/14/2021 6:05 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Yes! I got mine over a week ago, and he got his yesterday! Just the
>>> first ones though! I get my second on the last week in April. He
>>> hasn't been told yet.
>>
>> Huh? I've heard that you need to get the second one in 2-3 weeks, not
>> months later.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> That is how it started but it has lengthened now! They say it is
>> better!
>>
>>
>
>
> They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
> and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
> this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
>
> You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
> problem eased.
>
> ====
>
> Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr
> Trump
> that said they weren't necessary
>

Of course you think that. But you are wrong. It was Dr. Fauci. You
know, the "gold standards" guy. LOL.

====

I have no intention of arguing about this. Was it, or was it not, Trump
who said masks were not necessary?

[OT] Don't do this!
 

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:29:41 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
>
>They say it is better because the logistics are screwed up (after local
>and state agencies knowing for over a year this was coming . . .) and
>this new story fits the logistics. No studies cited.
>
>You know, masks were unnecessary. Before they were, after the supply
>problem eased.
>
>====
>
> Not here. We were always told to wear masks. I think it was Mr Trump
>that said they weren't necessary

I'll always remember how Trump stood on that balcony, like the second
coming of Mussolini, and took his mask off in a dramatic Macho-Man
gesture. The deplorables were drooling when they saw that.

--

So do I!!! Perhaps the people here don't remember that!

[OT] Don't do this!
 

On 14/02/2021 16:16, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-14 8:46 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:

>> The pros have played fast and loose with the "science" in this
>> pandemic. People kept saying to follow the science, but the stuff they
>> were talking about was more anecdotal than empirical.Â* Early on they
>> said that masks weren't necessary, Save them for the medical and long
>> term care workers. Then they were a good idea.Â* Then they started
>> mandating masks indoors.Â* Science is supposed to be based on facts, so
>> the conclusions should not be changing repeatedly.
>
> FFS!! Things change as you learn more!!!

Indeed.
Somewhere, I have an essay written by my molecular biologist niece on
that very subject.