Cl*rks*n

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a car
prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement
at his marrying of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which they
considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware of his outdated
haircut. When was the internal combustion engine invented?

Not to mention the carriage ...

🙂 Andy

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.197c72ba5e124d8f989ae8@localhost...

Quoted message said:

I wonder which they considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware
of his outdated haircut.

Maybe. He's intelligent enough to see the joke, but has a rather primitive sense of humour that lets
him carry on and on with such things.

In the Times a couple of weeks ago he was on about yob culture in britain and how people have stupid
hair cuts. There were letters the week after

Colin Blackburn said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a car
prog these days.

Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all, the current programme is all
about Clarkson rather than the cars as was the old TG. The old team were a great collection, but the
BBC put money behind programming the Clarkson talk show and then resurrected TG in its place as the
name has wider appeal. He's genuinely funny some of the time but the % has slipped as his time on
camera has increased - I don't watch TG for that reason, but occasionally read a few para's from the
Sunday Times. (as for old and new tech: JC has never ever varied from the line that new cars are
always better than old cars - a very clever and sensible way of ensuring the manufacturers love him)

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the views of a substantial
group. Sadly, this is what passes for light entertainment under their Toniness and Gregness. Give
me BBC7 repeats of Dad's Army in preference any day.... at least there's a modicum of humour
somewhere in there.

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.197c72ba5e124d8f989ae8@localhost...

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a car
prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement
at his marrying of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which they
considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware of his outdated
haircut. When was the internal combustion engine invented?

Colin

Our JC also mentioned that the Tories had promised to introduce various policies to appease the
"road lobby" like ripping up loads of speedbumps, raising speed limits (I think) and removing the M4
bus lane. This all got big cheers from the audience. He then mentioned Darling's plans to widen
"every road in Britain". The audience was non-plussed- they didn't know whether they were supposed
to cheer. Can it be that even petrol heads have realised that widening roads may not be the answer?
Probably not, but then I like to see the good in people.

Peter.

"Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a
car prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing
bemusement at his marrying of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which
they considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware of his
outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine invented?

Not to mention the carriage ...

Top Gear is more about drivers than cars these days.

Best avoided.

F A

Colin Blackburn deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a car
prog these days.

You 'had the misfortune to see' ... [censored] .. You just thought you'd watch it 'cos you like it and
thought you could poke fun at the items in it.

Quoted message said:

They mentioned that guy who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing bemusement at his marrying
of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology."

So how many steam driven vehicles are in regular use nowadays ?

Quoted message said:

I wonder which they considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware
of his outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine invented?

The internal combustion engine is still being developed though, and is still in use in great
numbers, showing that it doesn't matter how long ago it was invented, but how useful it actually
is. It's still in development, gaining more horsepower, losing weight, and improving efficiency
all the time.

The Steam Engine isn't.

--
Digweed

al_Mossah said:

Our JC also mentioned that the Tories had promised to introduce various policies to appease the
"road lobby" like ripping up loads of speedbumps,

Barnet have/are ripping up all the speed bumps believing they cause more pollution and unacceptable
delay to emergency vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Darling's plans to widen "every road in Britain". The audience was non-plussed- they didn't know
whether they were supposed to cheer.

They simply didn't believe New Labour ....

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The internal combustion engine is still being developed though, and is still in use in great
numbers, showing that it doesn't matter how long ago it was invented, but how useful it actually
is. It's still in development, gaining more horsepower, losing weight, and improving efficiency
all the time.

The Steam Engine isn't.

If you had half a brain you'd perhaps comprehend that the gist here is the development of the
bicycle. This is a cycling newsgroup after all. The bicycle has continued to develop in much
the same way.

Colin

Farmer Alfalfa said:

"Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had the misfortune to see Top Gear last night---it seems to be more of a comedy prog than a
car prog these days. They mentioned that guy who'd developed the steam bicycle, expressing
bemusement at his marrying of an "outdated technology" and an "old technology." I wonder which
they considered outdated and whether the guy saying this, not Cla*rks*n, was aware of his
outdated haircut. When was the internal combustion engine invented?

Not to mention the carriage ...

Top Gear is more about drivers than cars these days.

Top Gear is mostly about Clarkson these days.

In my view it should be renamed to something more fitting like "The Clarkson's The Star", "Jeremy
Clarkson's Motor Ego" or even "Prat Ego"!

Tenex said:

Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all, the current programme is all
about Clarkson rather than the cars as was the old TG.

Except that Clarkson was still Clarkson before he ever set foot inside the BBC. His columns for
"Performance Car" were just the same.

Quoted message said:

(as for old and new tech: JC has never ever varied from the line that new cars are always better
than old cars - a very clever and sensible way of ensuring the manufacturers love him)

Except Vauxhall...

Do not take Clarkson seriously, O World, for you will only make yourself appear foolish...

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Quoted message said:

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the views of a
substantial group.

And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says something 'controversial'!

I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment, good or bad. The best way
to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore
it.

Regards,

Pete.

Colin Blackburn said:

The bicycle has continued to develop in much the same way.

Except that it has developed very very s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y, thanks in no small part to the
Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H UCI and their multi-page definition of what a "bicycle" is. Materials yes, and
likewise stuff like gears and brakes, but if you were to show a Victorian a photo of Lance
Armstrong's bike, he'd know it was a bicycle. But if you showed him a photo of a Ford Focus, he
might have difficulty recognising it as a direct-line descendant of a Benz Viktoria.

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Dave Larrington said:

Tenex said:

Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all, the current programme is
all about Clarkson rather than the cars as was the old TG.

Except that Clarkson was still Clarkson before he ever set foot inside the BBC. His columns for
"Performance Car" were just the same.

Exactly - the BBc gave oxygen and created something larger.

Peter Connolly said:

Quoted message said:

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the views of a
substantial group.

And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says something 'controversial'!

I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment, good or bad. The best
way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore it.

Regards,

Pete.

Agreed on both counts - I can't understand why p[eople here get so vexed.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Except that it has developed very very s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y, thanks in no small part to the
Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H UCI and their multi-page definition of what a "bicycle" is. Materials yes, and
likewise stuff like gears and brakes, but if you were to show a Victorian a photo of Lance
Armstrong's bike, he'd know it was a bicycle. But if you showed him a photo of a Ford Focus, he
might have difficulty recognising it as a direct-line descendant of a Benz Viktoria.

True for for last 20 years but I don't think the average car in the seventies and early eighties was
a lot different from the earliest cars other than body shape. Development until then was pretty much
the same, stuff like materials, gears, brakes... of course there was engine development too but then
that bit isn't comparable with bikes---unless count the development of performance enhancing
drugs^W^W^W modern training and diet regimes.

Colin

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the views of a
substantial group.

And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says something 'controversial'!

I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment, good or bad. The best
way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore
it.

Trouble is, millions of people, presumably most of them car drivers, do not ignore it and watch it
every week.

Now I'm not saying that Clarkson was directly responsible for any car-bicycle accidents, but his
comments as well as similar ones in newspapers and other media are likely to reinforce existing
prejudices and aversions.

E.g., when he claims that "bicycles take up too much space on the roads", lots of drivers will say
"right he is" and feel vindicated in squeezing past cyclists inches from the handlebar or
shouting at them for not using poorly-designed cyclepaths.

It doesn't really matter whether Clarkson means such statements in jest or not. After all, racist
"jokes" aren't funny either.

Just my two kopeks, Andy

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Connolly said:

Quoted message said:

He's there to provoke the odd controversy, not to educate or represent the views of a
substantial group.

And it works, judging by the number of messages here everytime he says something
'controversial'!

I regard him as similar to 'modern art'; it exists only to induce comment, good or bad. The best
way to approach it (and Clarkson) is to just ignore it.

Regards,

Pete.

Agreed on both counts - I can't understand why p[eople here get so vexed.

I don't think people are vexed. Then again I judge each piece of art on its own merits.

Colin

In "]news:[email hidden], Dave Larrington <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Tenex said:

Surely everyone realises he's simply a product of the BBC? After all, the current programme is
all about Clarkson rather than the cars as was the old TG.

Except that Clarkson was still Clarkson before he ever set foot inside the BBC. His columns for
"Performance Car" were just the same.

Except I distinctly remember him writing ones about riding bikes then. Just for urban trips, mind.
To the pub, of course.

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Except I distinctly remember him writing ones about riding bikes then. Just for urban trips, mind.
To the pub, of course.

He did indeed. He claimed to have bought an old Raleigh Wayfarer to ride to the White Horse in
Parsons Green, but his cycling phase lasted no time, coz apparently he had to push it home all the
time, thereby defeating the object of having it in the first place.

Then it got stolen.

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================