Anchorhead

Ripplin said:

I would imagine I could find a course like that in Canada too. Not locally, but probably within an hour of here in any direction. (yeah, I live in that kind of town) Perhaps at the license office I went for my beginner's license.

http://www.ridertraining.org/

Gaffer Tape said:

Same here. Never ridden a bike (well, motorcyle... I ride a bicycle all the time when I can), but this has been a good short story, nonetheless.

C3PX said:

I am not really into bikes by any means and have very little interest in them, but I have to say, this thread has been a really enjoyable read.

I suppose everyone has something that moves them, some sort of passion. For me, it's been motorcycles since I was a child. Truthfully, I can't imagine not doing it.

Ripplin said:

...something like a Virago is on the realistic list.

Good choice for a first street bike - and I speak from experience. I started riding in 1972, on dirt bikes. In high school, I'd moved on to Enduros (street-legal dirt bikes). My first real street bike was a 1981 Virago. Took two months pay to buy it. Got a ride to the dealer and my first ride on her was back home in the pouring rain - the first of many over the years.

This is a studio\ad shot of the bike. Mine was identical.

Several months later I took my first cross-country trip on it. Two weeks, thousands of miles, and lots-o-rain. This picture was taken on day 5 of the trip, somewhere in Tennessee - the first day it wasn't raining. Tough, but fun.

Ripplin said:

I also drew what is, as far as I can remember, a 1997 Softail Classic

I'm not well-versed on Harleys. That drawing is clearly based on one, but they have a ton of models that are very similar. Beyond the big differences - Softail, Sportster, Springer, etc, I can't tell them apart very well.

If you ever make the jump, by all means, take the MSF beginner's course. Two days of classroom & riding, covering the fundamentals and the physics - they supply the bike. I wish they would have had that when I was starting out. Really makes a difference with myth vs fact where skilled riding is concerned.

http://www.msf-usa.org/

Excellent choice for a CCR greatest. I grew up with their music.

Link to post about my old Triple; http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Maybe-I-should-have-named-her-Ilsa/topic/10558/

I saw you have a scale model of a 999 in your photography link. Are you a rider?

"And if you get lost, come on home to Green River"

Huge CCR fan here.

*edit*

For those unfamiliar;

http://www.last.fm/music/Creedence+Clearwater+Revival/_/Green+River

Ripplin said:

I have a Craftsman lawnmower. It has a Briggs & Stratton motor with a 'Fresh Start' fuel cap. The mower needs B&S fuel additive to run (stupid priority software...) and their special fuel cap has a little container filled with the additive that plugs into the bottom of the cap and sucks out drops of the additive as you mow.

Stumbled onto this while looking for something else (missed it this past summer).

I made a rather lengthy post several months ago about an older motorcycle I was selling, partly due to fuel issues - struggling with gasoline that has a percentage of Ethanol (E-10).

Fresh Start is just a fuel stablizer. Ripp's mower doesn't need Fresh Start to run, but it does help keep the E-10 gas more stable, which helps it run better.  If you didn't use it, you'd see a marked decrease in performance, but it would take time. Carburetor engines struggle with E-10 much more so than injected engines.

E-10 also has a much shorter shelf life than regular gasoline.  It can start to go stale in just a few weeks. That's why it's a headache for lawn mowers.  The fuel usually sits much longer (in the gas can) than in a car. Personally, I use Sta-Bil, but there are others. Just make sure they are for E-10 fuel stabilization, not cleaners (those generally have alcohol, the very problem you're trying to combat).

Two thoughts on the cap dispenser.

Those are more expensive because they're a small, manufactured, application-specific piece delivering a concentrated version of the stabilizer (hence the drip application).

It's in B&S's best interest to get their customers to use the cap dispenser because customers may not always pre-mix the stabilzer\gas in their storage cans - which would lead to more engine problems - which in turn become warranty claims\customer complaints.

Gaffer Tape said:

And I also.  I hesitated buying the Indiana Jones set for years just because I was so angered that they did that to Raiders.

 

I also put off buying the first three for years. I only gave in and bought them last year because I feared further changes and increased difficulty getting the mildly-altered versions (2003 set) I have now. Figured I better get a set I like while I can.

C3PX said:

I try to bring up something I find of extreme interest every now and then, but my threads are usually destined to die with only one of two replies, which tells me I am not a very interesting guy.

With all due respect sir, my topics fall several pages back much faster than yours. ;-)

ChainsawAsh said:

The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration.  A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that.  I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.

I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.

I'm in that minority also.

Jay said:

 Haven't watched any Star Wars anything in at least 3 years, actually.

Same here.  I watched the 06 DVD of Star Wars77 the day I bought it.  Since then, it's been the NPR version only. If an anamorphic version of 77 comes out, I'll buy it and watch it.  Other than that, my Star Wars world is settled.

TheBoost said:

In the OT our focus was mainly on non-Jedi issues, except specifically Luke's journey. The villains were criminals and Imperial military. Most of the heroes were smugglers, poloticians, and shady businessmen.

I agree with the first sentence. The main story of the first three films isn't really a Jedi story, per se. In fact, most of the military seems to regard the old religion as obsolete. The outcome of the main conflict happens to be decided by a former Jedi (losing) and a Jedi in training (winning), but it's a non-Jedi military conflict.

Regarding the heroes, the true heroes are an old Jedi Knight, a princess working clandestinely against the military, a farm boy drawn into the story by accident, and a self-serving pilot hired to provide transportation so that military information can be delivered.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

since Luke was training to be a jedi like his father, and star wars was from the adventures of luke skywalker i think jedi were of a large importance, the very scales of the conflict were decided by good or bad elites who were force users, the rest of the characters were clearly pawns. 

No doubt Luke's abilities are the deciding factor in the rebels defeating the military, but I don't think I'd go as far as to say the Jedi were of large importance. Outside of an old Jedi Knight getting Luke involved, the old religion had little else to do with it. Granted, that one step, which happens by accident, is a huge one. Outside of that, their involvement is largely indirect.

It was Luke's resolve and his ability to work with the force that ultimately decides the outcome. In fact, of the three true Jedi we meet, one is killed, one dies of old age, & one is defeated.

I think Ben sums up their role very well - "The Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace & justice in the old republic...before the Empire". The Jedi are important to Luke, but it's a personal story for him - not the one we're part of while sitting in the theater.

Moments later, he was back on the road.

(been waiting for an excuse to post that)

Bingowings said:

It was fun piling into the Odeon and waiting for a film to start up and having the disco versions of Star Wars, Superman or Close Encounters pumping away later joined by the similarly reworked Imperial March (it was either that or Elton John and Kiki Dee).

 

.

It's official - I feel old today.

;-)

TheBoost said:

 Greedo went to kill Solo to collect on the bounty. That makes him a bounty hunter in my book. It's not a question of cool armor or mystique, it's all in the hunting for bounties.

I agree.  Greedo was every bit a bounty hunter.  He tracked Solo down and had every intention of killing him and bringing his body back for payment. 

bkev said:

Anchorhead, you wouldn't happen to be in the LA area would you? 10@10 is a local thing around here too

I used to live in L.A, but not anymore.  I assume you're talking about 100.3?  That's not the station I listen to. 

There are a few stations around the country that have a 10@10.  Great feature, always a lot of fun to hear the songs and news clips from a long ago year.  Well, unless it's one of the years that reminds me of how much time has passed because I actually remember the songs playing on the radio that year - like today.  :-(

*edit*

Damn song has been stuck in my head all day.  Good thing I like it now. ;-)

The radio station I listen to has a daily program called 10@10, where they play ten songs from one year, at 10:00 AM. Occasionally they play ten songs from one decade, one from every year. Today was one of those days. When they got to 1977, the song was the Meco disco version of Star Wars.

Man, that thing got a ton of airplay that year. I wasn't crazy for it in 1977 because it seemed sacrilegious to tamper with the music from Star Wars.

Today - I voted for it to get Best Of Set. Guess I've mellowed a little. ;-)

For the unwashed...

skyjedi2005 said:

I had always figured Boba Fett and Han Solo had some past not mentioned in the films....

I always kind of saw Fett as doing this job for the money more like a mercenary,

That's how it felt to me also. Boba Fett was just a hired gun with no real loyalties or connections to anyone. Same with the others we see briefly.

I think bounty hunter is a fitting term and not being used to avoid any other designation.

*hard to punctuate in a way that denotes Paul Harvey.

Vaderisnothayden,

Since you've moved on to baiting & trolling, let me leave you with three things.

1. I'm never going to watch the second two prequels or the SEs.

2. You don't get to decide whether or not Return is a good film - just as I don't get to decide it's a bad film. Our thoughts can only represent our worlds.  In yours, you like the film and think it's good - in mine, I dislike the film and think it's bad. Those are truths that are not debatable, even though you continue to try.

3. I don't care about Return - at all. Watch it weekly if you want. I'm never going to watch it again.

Now, you'll have to champion the film without any further input from me.

Besides, I have a plane to catch.

In keeping with the spirit of Bkev's original idea;  After an early morning ride in the twisties, I'm back home to help the house sitter settle in, then I'm off to Napa for a week of tasting & relaxation. Back on the 28th.