Motorbikes.

[Baggy Trousers]

Originally Posted by pre65

Baggo, click on these you tube links and turn the sound volume right up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTwSjBEcT9I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

PS. My Triumph engine malady was one of Meridens finest. It's a Tri-BSA, Triumph engine, BSA frame and gearbox.

Oops! Sorry Philip - should have remembered. Frankly, I've never understood why Mr Turner's engine was so popular with the special builders. Certainly, it went well enough but was not as robust as the A7/A10 or the 88/99 in my view. So, it's a Tri-BSA but doesn't Ariel get a mention for the rear swinging arm?

And talking of which, isn't it odd that Velo should have have a S/A on the Roarer but retain a girder front end? Thanks for the YouTube links. I've run the computer through the 6550 and when Mrs Trousers was out shopping, had 20 amps of Velocette "roaring" out of the Autographs. Bliss! Almost as heady as a short stroke Manx approaching Creg ny Baa . . . . .

I'm glad I'm not any younger - this sort of thing makes me want to go out and do something stupid!

[Shane]

Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't do stupid things. I have it on good authority that the older I get, the stupider I get.

[pre65]

Originally Posted by Baggy Trousers

So, it's a Tri-BSA but doesn't Ariel get a mention for the rear swinging arm?

Indeed Baggo. In fact I use an anagram of TriBSA for my bike, I call it a Britsa.

That's short for British bitsa.

Triumph engine, BSA frame, gearbox & rear wheel, Norton forks and Enfield primary chaincase.

[bob orbell]

Originally Posted by Shane

Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't do stupid things. I have it on good authority that the older I get, the stupider I get.

Err, Shane, that should read (more stupid) not (stupider) say's the man who is **** at spelling. I think. BOB

[Greg.]

Hmmm, stupider is recorded and recognised as a legitimate adjective in the OED.

[bob orbell]

Thank's Greg, I said I was **** at spelling, but it just sounded wrong, oh well, apology to Shane.

[Shane]

I wondered about that, but stupider flowed better in the sentence, so I used it anyway! Thanks Greg for the vindication. Perhaps I'm not so stupid after all.

[Baggy Trousers]

Originally Posted by Greg.

Hmmm, stupider is recorded and recognised as a legitimate adjective in the OED.

Maybe so but it is both clumsy and ugly. I'm with Bob on this one.

Anyway, I should know as I'm stupider than most and more stupid than some, so there!

[Greg.]

Hi Baggy,

I understand the point you are making. The problem is, regardless of preference, language and the words used is an evolutionary process. As much as many of us hate the changes, often introduced by marketing companies and their like, we have no option but to go with the flow, even if the grammar is completely incorrect. We just have to live with the change.

Also, consider the Welsh language as one simple example. In order for it to remain viably modern, it has to incorporate new words to reflect our social and technical progression and invariably, those new words have an anglicized (note the 'z') origin.

Yep, I know what you mean but on reflection, I'm happy to be stupider rather than more stupid

[Baggy Trousers]

Originally Posted by Greg.

Hi Baggy,

I understand the point you are making. The problem is, regardless of preference, language and the words used is an evolutionary process. As much as many of us hate the changes, often introduced by marketing companies and their like, we have no option but to go with the flow, even if the grammar is completely incorrect. We just have to live with the change.

Also, consider the Welsh language as one simple example. In order for it to remain viably modern, it has to incorporate new words to reflect our social and technical progression and invariably, those new words have an anglicized (note the 'z') origin.

Yep, I know what you mean but on reflection, I'm happy to be stupider rather than more stupid

To my profound regret, I am unable dispute the validity of the above. Yes, language is an organic, ever-evolving tool of communication and it could be argued that provided it allows thoughts or whatever accurately to be conveyed and received, it matters little how the mechanism is constructed.

Frankly, I consider this to be a specious argument. To accept this would be to allow that the illiterate textings of idiot children would have the same mechanistic value as the works of Macauley or Shakespeare. Language can be a beautiful thing in itself and I would not sacrifice this beauty on the altar of convenience or, more usually these days, ignorance. One has only to compare the writing of the King James Bible, for example, with the dumbed-down banality of trendy, "inclusive" modern editions to appreciate the point. We all tacitly accept the fundament of this proposition demonstrated by our listening to music on a bespoke, very high quality system in preference to something from Curry's, probably assembled in China. Since both reproduce music, it might be held that this is sufficient in itself but if we subscribed to this view, we would all be listening to Sonys! Or Naims . . .

However, I do accept that my antediluvian views are not widely shared in a world of sadly reduced standards. Nevertheless I shall eschew Fowler's Modern English Usage and continue to plough my lonely furrow. Greg can be stupider if he wishes - I resolutely shall remain more stupid.

Sad innit?