Look closer, it's a Duke 690.

Here's another pic of an SV650:

As you've realised, unless you can get the power down then it's a waste. If you're a superb rider (I'm not!)then you could do more with it, but you're then taking a lot of risks on the road.

In my case, I like riding my current TDM, enjoy tweaking/fettling and it's not at all fashionable or race-bred so I'm not in an arms-race with anyone.

I would like to try a Tiger 1050 (preferably on a closed, empty Alpine pass in the sun), though, if that's what you're talking about.

I'd also like to try a one of these low-powered beasties:

There's ridiculous snobbery and bragging rights about motorbikes, just because race-bred superbikes are affordable, doesn't mean you need one or can do one justice. In most cases the rider is the limiting factor. A bike that's fast around a race track isn't necessarily ideal on the rough, pot-holed ROADS of the UK when the weather isn't perfect.

Get the SV, it'll be good enough and fettling it to handle better will be more satisfying than going out and buying a 'fast' bike, blasting down straights, braking hard and early and then bimbling around corners :wink:

I'm almost certain that it couldn't do sub-11 secs for the standing quarter, but then again neither will most superbikes without a very skilled rider.

Not braking and purely scrubbing-off speed is not good/effective form.

It is the quickest line, ergo you are in the lead and you want to consolidate that by continuing to be quickest

That is the case if you are well in the lead without someone behind you taking a poorer line to slow you and force past.

Although it is good to consolidate the lead, it is still very important to do some show-boating past the spectators.

[*]Don't crash
Don't get tangled with other karts.
Be aware of what's around you
The 'racing line' isn't always the best when racing against others.
Be smooth
Don't skid

And finally, if you are in the lead, do drift it past the spectators, it looks great ;)
[/*]

Hi-viz vest wrapped around it

I went a few years ago. It's a great country with very friendly people. There weren't many westerners about outside of Manilla which was good. In some places there were a few middle-aged white chaps with young, attractive local "girls of negotiable affection" which seemed odd at first.

As said, Manilla is worth a look for a couple of days, but very polluted and a bit grotty. There are a lot of armed guards about, but no sign of trouble when I was there.

We ended up having to stay a night in Angeles, nr Pinatubo. The hotels are on the strip which is a basically a sex resort full of middle-aged Germans and Americans. Not good.

The north of Luzon is superb. Sagada, Banaue etc. are definitely worth a visit and the bus/truck/jeepney journey is an experience in itself.

Palawan is tropical, with crocodiles and the like. It's very laid back and worth a visit.

Mindoro is a really nice island for diving and jungle walks. Plus a fair few of the inevitable German and American sex tourists… The very fast open outrigger ferry from the mainland is preferable to the modern catamaran.

Here's what I knocked up this afternoon

I'm now wishing that I'd gone for the bigger version….

If you're going to be compressing the insulation, then putting a sheet of Thermawrap under the boards could be useful.

Thermawrap from Screwfix

I used it to add insulation to my kitchen ceiling (and plaster-boarded it afterwards) and it is effective.

Omnipotence can do wonders. Well, that's what I've always found.

I obviously didn't realise the true meaning of CIA, but it explains a lot.

Zazzle.com

This is better though, from Jesus Hats!:

….and for Frankie goes to Hollywood fans:

Is that a weapons training course?

Let us have a show of hands:

How many non-believers have been persuaded to go to the Alpha Course by this thread?

How many believers have been convinced that their blind faith in an un-provable religion is wrong?

a Free Meal , you say?

Hmm, suddenly it's becoming tempting.

Nah. I'll pass thanks.

"What's the worst that could happen?"
-you could be wasting a few hours of your non-eternal life.

surfer – Member

The Crown, East Lancs road Liverpool.

Grim doesnt even begin to describe it!

That was an important centre of commerce in north Liverpool
As my old grandad once told me,
"In the Crown you could buy anything, from a pin to an elephant…..It might have a had a few dents from where it fell off a ship on the dock road though"

It was demolished a few years ago.

Let's sum up:

Believers in a god 'believe' because they want to and feel comforted by it despite the fact that there isn't any feedback or evidence for it(nobody on here has offered anything to contradict this). Many probably do know that it's unlikely to be true, but hedge their bets and hide behind the notion that 'blind faith' in something is a virtue. Dogma and tradition have been developed by humans, on Earth, over time and are followed in different ways by different people. It can't all be right, even if everyone 'believes' that their way is the one true way.

Non-believers do not believe in a higher being because they see no reason to. they are, by their vary nature, not a group at all and have no common philosophy. They often resent the influence of religion on society.

There's little more to say.

There are plenty of atheists who pick and choose what they believe in. There are plenty of atheists who complete f**kwits ….

er, yes…And,er, what does that have to do with discussing the existence of a god?

Giraffes did not evolve over many years in the environment of a zoo.
Of course, If a zoo provides food at great height then a long neck is an advantage.

If you become disabled and there is enough support, you can survive and pro-create. If there is insufficient support/resources you won't.

Giraffes do not need long necks to survive – giraffes in zoos can eat perfectly adequately without the need for their long necks. But the success of the species is down to giraffes having long necks.

And your point is?

In the same way I could have my left arm amputated and still survive to procreate successfully, and pass on my genes. But it would be nonsense to claim that two arms weren't vital for the success of the species.

and your repeated point is?

it was spontaneous – i can still do it, but it suddenly happened and I have no idea how,

And what did you think you were saying?

I once experienced a load of people "speaking in tongues", (shortly before I completely ended my association with the church, as a teenager).

From what I recall it sounded like,
"mumble, shout, mumble, Ford Sierra, mumble, mumble, Ford Sierra etc.etc."

At the time the Ford Sierra was a very popular middle-sized car. Nowadays, people may say "Ford Mondeo", but, in these aspirational times, probably something more like "BMW 318i"

Well put, iDave.

and ability to speak in a weird foreign language.

Tell me, did you consciously 'speak in tongues' to fit in with the others or was it a spontaneous thing and did it seem comprehensible at the time?

None of them needed to be correct for

In every single society without exception, throughout history, and throughout pre-history, however large or however small, and however isolated, people have co-existed with religion

to be true.

Indeed and it was a flawed statement.

The point being that although lots of people may have had religion, a lot of people worshipping various different higher beings doesn't prove the existence of any of those higher beings.

It could be argued that giraffes can eat without the need of their long necks. But it is precisely because of their long necks, that the species has been successful.

???

Giraffes with long necks could eat leaves on tall trees when the low down leaves were in short supply. Giraffes with short necks starved and long-necked ones re-produced. Over time the long-necked Giraffes became the norm.

In every single society without exception, throughout history, and throughout pre-history, however large or however small, and however isolated, people have co-existed with religion.

But which of these many different religions and gods is the right one?

People have always tried to influence an assumed "higher being" to make events work in their favour. Does that, in any way, prove the existence of that higher being?????

Er, there have been one or two skirmishes as a result of people disagreeing over which is the correct part of their own particular folklore that requires following to allow entry into paradise…some of which have been a little violent….

People used to worship the sun, they had a massive head-start over us.

As a modern country, it would be nice to think that we were a sophisticated society, buy have a patron saint who performed the miracle of slaying a dragon.

Mr Woppit it may have been an awakening for you but you shouldn't assume the same for others.
Atheist discussion has a proud and long history, albeit not made up of bestsellers.

What's this? "I'm considerably more atheist than you"?

coffeeking – Member

I've come >< this close to running up and ticking the No box on the poster outside the church here, just to make me chuckle when I walk past it.

Me too. There's a massive advertising hoarding one near our house that went up a couple of weeks back. Had I a tin of black emulsion in the boot of the car when I first saw it I'd have done it. On reflection I'm too soft to do it, as one of the local PCSOs might have seen me setting up my ladders :-)

Interestingly those bars on the Alpha course website opinion poll never seem to change -and why is there no "probably not" option at the Alpha course?

I'm not sure how not being an adherant of religion automatically makes a person a "disciple" of the non-deity-worshipping Richard Dawkins.

Non-belief was around before he wrote a book, although he possibly voiced what a lot of people thought, but didn't know how to articulate.

Not having blind faith is not the same as denouncing a god. Given evidence and rational explanation (which is not something associated with religion), many people would be prepared to change their views in response to the evidence.

tyger – Member

You're either for Him or against Him but the offers there (until you die). Truth of the matter is that God loves you.

There it is again. What is this "Truth" of which people speak? Surely the truth of the matter is that some people want to believe that their god loves them and that they practice various rituals and traditions that have been developed over the years by other people in order to please the god in which they strongly believe.

The poor, unlucky inhabitants of the world who happened not to be within reach of the founders of a particular religion/existed before the founders became enlightened/died before a religion changed its rules to suit the times were/are presumably condemned to an eternity of damnation.

Or maybe it's all baseless and untrue?

As for me….I also believe in The Trinity of God

Why so?

Tiboy – Member

…the simple truth is that He (God)gave his only Son so that we might be saved, that is the gift he offers us, eternal life, spent in heaven with Him

At the age of 14 I found that vey hard to believe and now, in my 30s, I don't find it any easier.

Please explain to me where the knowledge of this "simple truth" comes from. I'm genuinely intrigued as you obviously know something that nobody else does.

Fair enough , if it's what you want to believe and it makes you feel better…. I can't say I can see any reason to believe in any of it though.

What those of a any religious persuasion have to realise is that having 'blind faith' is not inherently superior to not having 'blind faith' and that other people should not be forced to 'respect'/accommodate other people's unfounded beliefs and dogma-led demands. Just because someone in the distant past (when many things that are now understood were thought to be miracles or works of supernatural beings) wrote down a story that had been passed by word-of-mouth over generations, it doesn't make it true.

Don't forget, religion is very influential. Remember, we live in a state with an established church to which the vast majority of the population does not actively belong or believe in, if they spend any time thinking about it.

What always makes me chuckle (as a Christian) is the "science PROVES God doesn't exist" line taken by a lot of people….does it really?

…But that's not what people generally say.

A religious person says "god exists"

A non-religious person says "how so? What is the evidence?"

The religious person says "er, because I want to believe it" (Which, as a non-christian, makes me chuckle)

The non-religious person says "Hmm, I'm not convinced…"

The agnostic "I don't really know" (a la Mavis Riley) is a bit weak. Maybe we should prod them with pointy sticks 'til they join one camp or the other.

There is no evidence of a 'god', nor is there evidence of there not being a 'god'. As it happens I'd be surprised if there was a 'god'.

I'm open-minded enough not to believe what I was told at Sunday School as a child. I do not believe a word of the organised religions(all of them claim to be one-true-way to heaven which must be wrong for a start…).

Does rejecting all religion make me an atheist or does the fact that I don't worship a god because I see no reason to make me an agnostic?

miketually – Member
If it helps, many Christians ask the same question.

It doesn't help, but it's interesting to know that christians are just as puzzled by what they are doing as I am about them doing it

I was brought up in a family of regular church-goers, have relatives in the clergy and attended church until the age of 16. Despite this up-bringing I have a questioning mind and do not believe in the teachings of any of the world's organised religions.

Of course, it's impossible to say that there isn't a god, but there's certainly no evidence that there is and, for that matter, why should there be?

Unless it's just a means by which to control people, I struggle to understand how 'blind faith' can be considered such a virtue.

Just because something is not immediately understood shouldn't instantly lead to a belief in it being brought about by an omnipotent, omnipresent 'higher being'.

Those who compare atheists with evangelical preachers miss the point entirely. Given evidence, the atheists would be prepared to the existence of a god. Evangelical preachers believe in the existence of a god (and all of the associated man-made dogma and tradition) despite any evidence.

I saw a poster the other day.
Does God Exist?
Yes
No
Probably

Now is it just me or is the choice of answers offered to that question slightly loaded?

Good work.

I rode my Crosslight down the Belmont descent from Winter Hill and the Rivington Ice Cream Run on Thursday.

On Saturday morning, as I negotiated the Trans-Pennine Trail in the badlands of Cheshire, there was more creaking than usual. The handling then went a bit loose as if the back tyre had gone down. It was pointed out to me that there was daylight showing through where there shouldn't be….

Maybe I'll use a more suitable bike in future….

Maybe some people do know about real survival, but I doubt that many do…. I don't think a critic's current location makes much difference.

He does have a bear fence, although he mentions the batteries running out and in the 2nd episode he said that he's not using it. I wonder how effective the fence would be in the event of a bear charging full-speed at his bivvi anyway?

I'm amazed (or am I?) by the negative, know-it-all posts about this.

I wasn't aware of the program until I read about it here and I've just watched both of the episodes on 4OD.

I don't watch much TV these days, but this, in my view, is better than 99% of the rubbish that is normally on when the TV is on and is definitely worth watching.

Whilst I agree that he probably should have bagged more animals in the first episode and maybe built a better shelter, the silence, the lack of company and the presence of bears must make for a strange experience. If this were filmed in somewhere like Scotland then the lack of large predators would probably make it less intimidating.

NB. a gun isn't a lot of use if you're awoken from deep sleep by a large bear that's trying to kill you.

I would love to do something like this and expect that it could be very difficult. Reading books and knowing a few techniques are not the same as actually doing it. Struggling to find food must be very demoralising, especially as it is obviously going to be followed by a weakening of the body.

Whilst watching the programme, my view was also that the editing has been done to provide a narrative. He is enjoying aspects of the venture, but there are obviously going to times when he's feeling down and these instances have been given a lot of air-time. If he finds a good source of food he'll presumably feel much better very quickly.

I can excuse him having his camera kit moved around by others -how else could it be filmed well enough?