Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well, it finally happened!!! Dark has, at last, told his “Juliet” how he feels about her.

I think we’ve all been privy to his musings and angst ridden deliberation over what to do about this princess named Michelle. Many of us have offered counsel and tried to give him the benefit of our wisdom. I for one have been particularly anxious to see him subjugate his nerves and bite the bullet. So much so that I’ve often become quite vociferous in my urgings.

However I am pleased to announce that I received a PM on Monday heralding the dawn of a new age. Dark informed me that he had, in fact, strode up to his beloved and despite at least 10 others in her presence, proclaimed his feelings for her.

This courageous action was met with applause and cheers of respect and approval from his fellows and special gratitude from its intended recipient.

I would therefore like to dedicate this thread to both Dark and Michelle (if she’s reading) and convey my congratulations to the young man.

Lets hope that Michelle will eventually feel ready to fully reciprocate and share Dark’s feelings and that they will hook up officially. At that time I have offered to blast down to where ever he lives, swoop up him and his lady before heading to my joint for many a vodka with me and any other of the SAU inner circle crew that wanna have a few.

I’ll need a co-pilot though as I’ve never been to where ever it is that Dark actually lives.

Who’s down?

:rave:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/26461-dark-only-by-name/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is what caused the banning.

Excessive whoring, cheap shots (someone's mum I recall) and very much stretching the 'no racist comments' line.

Sure - there was provocation, but the subsequent retalliation was just a bit too much for most to put up with. Kinda like Terrance - it simply became annoying.

If you guys still want to 'chat' - take it to the wasteland.

Good luck with your woman Dark... this thread be closed.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/26461-dark-only-by-name/#findComment-560496
Share on other sites

in plain english? compared to what ed said?? lol

well.. here..

today, michelle was sitting around with all her friends.. like 10 of them.. and i felt sorta nervous.. coz i'd be outnumberd.. but my friend said.. you have to lose ur dignity in the process.. otherwise its not gonna be worth it  

so i went up to her.. and told her exactly how i felt about her.. infront of everyone.. when i finished.. they all yelled out "go tharaka" lol.. i thought it was quite funny..  

then i told them all.. that thats it.. and i walked off..  

i lost all my dignity at the start.. but then when they all cheered for me.. i got it all back.. :D  

then at lunchtime.. michelle told me that it was the nicest thing anyone had ever said to her...  

i asked her out.. but she said that she wasnt ready quite yet =[.. she told me she'd say when she is ready..  

i'll be the first one in when she is ready..  so i guess all is good..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/26461-dark-only-by-name/#findComment-560744
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...