Re: Theftlink?

"Just JT" <JohnnyThor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:48394987$0$17465$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> "Just JT" <JohnnyThor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:48394577$0$4758$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Just JT" <JohnnyThor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:48393ec3$0$5229$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for 110 km/h being adequate, adequate for who?
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> Those roads were designed for 110kph.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The layout for the majority of Australian roads was determined

>>>> back in the 1800's, when horse and cart was the common mode of 
>>>> trans****t.
>>>> I don't recall seeing a horse and cart travelling unassisted at
110km/h 
>>>> lately.......
>>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The surface and width have been improved since then....
>>
>> And? That doesn't alter the fact that the layout, which is a key 
>> component of the design, was NOT specified to cope with 110km/h.
>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Layout is just one component.

Why are you repeating what I have already said? The layout is one
component 
of the design so, as the layout was clearly not intended to allow 110km/h,

it logically follows that the roads were not designed for 110km/h.

>
>
>>> You.clearly.have.no.knowledge.of.road.design.
>>
>> Quite a bit more than you it would seem. Or are you actually stupid 
>> enough to think that layout does not form a key component of the
overall 
>> design?
>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Layout is just one component.

Which proves your assertion that the roads were designed for 110km/h was 
complete and utter bull****.

> You.won't.fish.knowledge.from.me.oh.clueless.one.bwahahahahawwwrrr!!!

Probably because you have no knowledge to share, you useless ****wit.

-- 
Kwyj.