Valve rubber

Older readers will know what I mean.

We were discussing condoms the other night (don't ask), and the old joke about valve rubber came up.
This led me to wonder if the stuff is still available, or have sealed valves completely taken over.

Bill

 

"Chilly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Older readers will know what I mean.
>
> We were discussing condoms the other night (don't ask), and the old joke about valve rubber came
> up. This led me to wonder if the stuff is still available, or have sealed valves completely
> taken over.

Old style Woods valves are still standard in India so it must still be available -- just not all
that locally

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chilly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Older readers will know what I mean.
> >
> > We were discussing condoms the other night (don't ask), and the old joke about valve rubber came
> > up. This led me to wonder if the stuff is still available, or have sealed valves completely
> > taken over.
>
>
> Old style Woods valves are still standard in India so it must still be available -- just not all
> that locally
>
>

In an old Dunlop puncture repair kit tin I have a short piece of very fine rubber tubing which is
for "cut your own length" valve rubbers (rather than the pre-formed "mini-condom" variety) The only
bike I have with Woods valves (an F Frame Moulton) has the "new style" valves with the seal
mechanism - I reckon they must have been launched in about 1960.

While dwelling on old rubber goods - does anyone remember the DIY kits they used to sell to repair
nail type punctures in early tubeless car tyres (late
50s/early 60s) - got one of those too ! [Having just had a (rare) puncture repaired on a car tyre
the thought of the DIY plugs and glue is pretty scary on safety grounds]

RG

 

In article <[email protected]>, Chilly <[email protected]> writes
>Older readers will know what I mean.
>
>We were discussing condoms the other night (don't ask), and the old joke about valve rubber came
>up. This led me to wonder if the stuff is still available, or have sealed valves completely
>taken over.
>
Don't I recall that you had to stick a pin in it? Bad practice with condoms, one would think (your
own condoms, anyway)
--
The Big Baguette

 

"RG" <Don't even think about it> wrote: ( While dwelling on old rubber goods - does anyone remember
the DIY kits they ) used to sell to repair nail type punctures in early tubeless car tyres (late
( 50s/early 60s) - got one of those too ! ) [Having just had a (rare) puncture repaired on a car
tyre the thought of the ( DIY plugs and glue is pretty scary on safety grounds]

Wasn't there a low speed limit (pace Mr Smith) in the instructions on the tin? You had to get
the plug covered on the inside by a vulcanised patch fairly soon after making the repair, too,
didn't you?

The only time I ever remember using one of those kits was in the pouring rain somewhere East of Fort
William in the late sixties. We drove about twenty miles on the plug to get to the the nearest
blacksmith-and-tyre- depot who did the vulcanising.

 

Chilly wrote:
> Older readers will know what I mean.

I'm not that old! ...and I /think/ I know what you're talking about

> We were discussing condoms the other night (don't ask), and the old joke about valve rubber came
> up. This led me to wonder if the stuff is still available, or have sealed valves completely
> taken over.

Presta and Shraeder valves have virtually taken over in the UK now, but the spare bit of rubber (if
that's what you mean?) is still supplied with some puncture kits - perhaps those intended to be
shipped abroad/internationally. This confuses younger people.

~PB

 

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:12:54 +0000, The Big Baguette <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't I recall that you had to stick a pin in it? Bad practice with condoms, one would think (your
>own condoms, anyway)

Which reminds me...

There was a tale I heard about a Roman Catholic couple who wanted IVF treatment, but being RC were
banned from - ahem - self abuse or use of a condom in order to capture the requisite sample. The
compromise agreed was to use a condom with a pin hole in it. And as the bloke (apparently) said:
"The wonderful thing is, we don't know whether it was the IVF or whether it happened naturally!"
'Course not, mate :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:20:35 +0000 (UTC), "RG" <[email protected]> wrote:

>does anyone remember the DIY kits they used to sell to repair nail type punctures in early tubeless
>car tyres (late
>50s/early 60s) - got one of those too !

Blimey, that takes me back! Dunlop brand, in a cylindrical yellow tin with a screw top - included a
wooden-handled tool for pushing the plug into the hole. I only ever saw one used in anger once - it
did work, and wasn't subsequently vulcanised over, the tyre lasted some years afterwards (it was a
Michelin XZX, so effectively immune to wear).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:12:54 +0000, The Big Baguette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't I recall that you had to stick a pin in it? Bad practice with condoms, one would think
>> (your own condoms, anyway)
>
> Which reminds me...
>
> There was a tale I heard about a Roman Catholic couple who wanted IVF treatment, but being RC were
> banned from - ahem - self abuse or use of a condom in order to capture the requisite sample. The
> compromise agreed was to use a condom with a pin hole in it. And as the bloke (apparently) said:
> "The wonderful thing is, we don't know whether it was the IVF or whether it happened naturally!"
> 'Course not, mate :-/
>
IVF's OK, but not barrier method contraception? That sounds like an interesting set of priorities

 

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:41:40 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>IVF's OK, but not barrier method contraception? That sounds like an interesting set of priorities

Well quite. And most of the Romans I know are somewhat baffled by the Pope's dogged determination to
keep condoms out of Church-run health clinics in Africa, too.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >IVF's OK, but not barrier method contraception? That sounds like an interesting set of priorities
>
> Well quite. And most of the Romans I know are somewhat baffled by the Pope's dogged determination
> to keep condoms out of Church-run health clinics in Africa, too.

Standard operating procedure. Keep your believers in ignorance, conformity and poverty. Its the aim
of all religions.

Anyway, the stupid old bugger will find out if he gets a limo through the pearly gates (or if its
all a load of bollox) fairly soon.

Then its on with the farce of black & white smoke.

Make the world a happier place -- scrap the f***ing lot of them.

T

 

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:50:28 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Standard operating procedure. Keep your believers in ignorance, conformity and poverty. Its the aim
>of all religions.

Is the wrong answer. I am neither poor nor ignorant, and Rowan Williams actively encourages
unconventional thinking.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:50:28 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Standard operating procedure. Keep your believers in ignorance,
conformity
> >and poverty. Its the aim of all religions.
>
> Is the wrong answer. I am neither poor nor ignorant, and Rowan Williams actively encourages
> unconventional thinking.

Just keep on incanting the mumbo jumbo Guy. If it makes you happy I'm not going to stop you.

T

 

Tony W wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> IVF's OK, but not barrier method contraception? That sounds like an interesting set of
>>> priorities
>>
>> Well quite. And most of the Romans I know are somewhat baffled by the Pope's dogged determination
>> to keep condoms out of Church-run health clinics in Africa, too.
>
>
> Standard operating procedure. Keep your believers in ignorance, conformity and poverty. Its the
> aim of all religions.
>
I don't think that that's a motive you can impute. Even if you don't believe, it's not that
difficult to conceive that the leaders of religions might happen to do so.

 

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:52:05 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just keep on incanting the mumbo jumbo Guy. If it makes you happy I'm not going to stop you.

Nowt to do with it. Your assertion is incorrect and offensive, though I am unlikely to take it
personally.

Whatever your view on individual religions and their beliefs, it is simply not true to say that they
all (or indeed any significant number) have as an aim "Keep your believers in ignorance, conformity
and poverty."

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:52:05 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Just keep on incanting the mumbo jumbo Guy. If it makes you happy I'm
not
> >going to stop you.
>
> Nowt to do with it. Your assertion is incorrect and offensive, though I am unlikely to take it
> personally.
>
> Whatever your view on individual religions and their beliefs, it is simply not true to say that
> they all (or indeed any significant number) have as an aim "Keep your believers in ignorance,
> conformity and poverty."
>
> Guy

Guy, I have a great deal of respect for your views and personality, both as displayed on this ng and
your homepage and I would never wish to offend you in anyway whatsoever....but...no. no buts...just
your thoughts on......

Conventional Christian beliefs and practices are based on, I believe, faith, hope and charity, the
greatest of these being faith. It is faith in the 'good book', faith in the word and faith in the
representation of the Christian belief system.

I was drugged up a Cafflic and actually went to train to be a Marist Brother (teaching religious
order, missionaries etc.), although at a very young age. 12 -14 years old until the hormones kicked
in and the futility of the chastity vow featured large in my views ;-)

Anyway, what if an individual had experienced God, or the energy that is God ?...what if the
individual no longer required faith as they had first hand, personal experience of the creator
energy, knew and understood the reason for existence, reality (and all that) ?

From my personal experience, any individual who tries to pass on this received wisdom, the general
response is to call into question the sanity of the individual concerned. It just strikes me as odd
that the accepted spiritual path of the people doing the questioning usually involves faith in a
book created to control the masses and trust in a heirarchy that has been proven corrupt, time
after time.

Whilst I accept that within formal religious organisations there are 'good' people, whose intentions
are just, wholesome and honest, there are also those who are not.

I respect everyone's individual right to follow whatever path they choose and would never criticise
anyone for doing so. I appreciate the fact that there is no such thing as good or evil. We take the
actions we do because we are the result of our experiences to date. We have no choice. Our decisions
are based on the sum total of our experiences.

All I would say to you is that you seem like an extremely intelligent person. Please do not rely on
faith alone. The 'truth' is out there (cheesy, I know ;-) and it can be experienced by each and
every individual, first hand. There is no-one better at finding God than you yourself. How can they
? they have not had your life experiences. They do not truly know you. Only you know you.

Please don't be offended by this, it is certainly not my intention to offend you. If you feel I am
talking utter codswallop, please feel free to call into question my sanity ;-)

Dave,

signing off and getting me bike, with a promise never to mention it again...'onest! (what was the
OP, Valve Rubber about by the way ?..probably something to do with bikes ??)

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nowt to do with it. Your assertion is incorrect and offensive, though I am unlikely to take it
> personally.
>
> Whatever your view on individual religions and their beliefs, it is simply not true to say that
> they all (or indeed any significant number) have as an aim "Keep your believers in ignorance,
> conformity and poverty."

It is required to accept one world view, a set of beliefs, creation myths, post death myths etc.
typically handed down by old men in funny clothes. That equals ignorance and conformity by my
understanding of things.

I could have added subservience (for much the same reason).

While individual adherents my have obtained monetary wealth surely your religion teaches something
about camels, eyes of needles and heaven!! I contend there is a poverty of spirit in those addicted
to religion. Too many use it as a crutch rather than taking responsibility for their own lives.

Maybe this new Welsh wizard with a dodgy beard and a strange taste in dresses does encourage free
thought. The C of E is hardly the most dogmatic of sects. But I just wonder if, in their accounting
of members (didn't they claim 70 million worldwide) are trying to count me in as I was christened --
not a lot of choice in the matter when your still in nappies -- and do tend to get dragged along to
about one service every couple of years.

Sorry if I offend. Please understand, I find it offensive that I have had various people telling me
what to be believe throughout my life from vicars, school chaplains to Mormons and assorted nutters.

Now, let's not get too didactic in a P Smith sort of way, even dodgy mathematical analysis will
offer little enlightenment here. You are happy that one of a competing set of very different
religions explains life, the universe and everything. They cannot all be true!! You are
probably very polite and politically correct when confronted with someone who believes in a
different version.

Sorry, but, to me the whole thing is nothing more than mumbo-jumbo. If you think my assertion is
incorrect and offensive try "you are cursed and your soul will burn in hell fire for an eternity".
Now that is offensive.

Now, allow me to go and abuse the happy clappies who seem to infest my life at the moment. Every
time I go into town some earnest young person seems concerned about my soul.

T

PS Sorry if I am a little crusty today. Two wonderful days for cycling over the weekend -- spent
either driving or making small talk. Grrrr. A few miles would have helped greatly.

 

In message <[email protected]>, Tony W <[email protected]> writes
>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Nowt to do with it. Your assertion is incorrect and offensive, though I am unlikely to take it
>> personally.
>>
>> Whatever your view on individual religions and their beliefs, it is simply not true to say that
>> they all (or indeed any significant number) have as an aim "Keep your believers in ignorance,
>> conformity and poverty."
>
>It is required to accept one world view, a set of beliefs, creation myths, post death myths etc.
>typically handed down by old men in funny clothes. That equals ignorance and conformity by my
>understanding of things.

For some people conformity isn't a problem. In fact they actively seek
it.

>Sorry if I offend. Please understand, I find it offensive that I have had various people
>telling me what to be believe throughout my life from vicars, school chaplains to Mormons and
>assorted nutters.

Do you include teachers, lecturers of economics, sociology, law and physics in the above list? They
all present various types of belief system that requirement conformity to greater or lesser extents.

>
>Now, let's not get too didactic in a P Smith sort of way, even dodgy mathematical analysis will
>offer little enlightenment here. You are happy that one of a competing set of very different
>religions explains life, the universe and everything. They cannot all be true!!

Perhaps people don't need them to be "true".

>Now, allow me to go and abuse the happy clappies who seem to infest my life at the moment. Every
>time I go into town some earnest young person seems concerned about my soul.

What would you rather they should be doing? Apart from cycling?
>
>T
>
>PS Sorry if I am a little crusty today. Two wonderful days for cycling over the weekend -- spent
> either driving or making small talk. Grrrr. A few miles would have helped greatly.

I find Usenet is a partial replacement.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Do you include teachers, lecturers of economics, sociology, law and physics in the above list?
> They all present various types of belief system that requirement conformity to greater or lesser
> extents.

There is a fundamental difference between a model of how the world works (physics, economics
certainly, sociology & law maybe) and a belief system that, without rational explanation or
evidence, says this is how it is.

Physics (for example) tries to explain the world through increasingly sophisticated models (Newton,
Einstein etc.) None of which are 'definitive' or all encompassing.

As such your comparison is invalid.

T

 

Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is a fundamental difference between a model of how the world works (physics, economics
> certainly, sociology & law maybe) and a belief system that, without rational explanation or
> evidence, says this is how it is.
>
> Physics (for example) tries to explain the world through increasingly sophisticated models
> (Newton, Einstein etc.) None of which are 'definitive' or all encompassing.
>
> As such your comparison is invalid.
>

The difference is artificial. Physics for example relies on several beliefs. One is that mathematics
works, another is that intrinsically the most elegant or simple model is the correct one (Occam's
Razor). To quote Richard Feynman "It is possible to know when you are right way ahead of checking
all the consequences. You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity.". If that is not a
belief system then I don't know what is.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn