So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
See this.
Part 1 https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
See this.
Part 1 >https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/ >NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and >admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou know which risk I was referring to but your pig-headed refusal to engage your last remaining brain cell is of concern to absolutely nobody that matters.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
See this.
Part 1 >>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks >>and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerousAnd of course your posts are dangerous - but I digress, EVs are arguably more dangersous than any other vehicles quite simply because we have yet to understand how to make them safe (unlike other vehicles). Do take a course in logic. Perhaps a 3rd form lesson or two in basic science would help you.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
See this.
Part 1 >>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
See this.
Part 1 >>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
effect.
Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your politics out. Yes I thought so.
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks >>>>and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher LuxonRidiculous comment - just stupid.
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making publicOff topic political rhetoric.
transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks >>>>>and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But yourSo you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your >politics out. Yes I thought so.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can killRidiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then reply to me you insufferable moron.I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But yourSo you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your >>politics out. Yes I thought so.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
amusement, Tony:
You are replying to Crash.They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can killRidiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then >reply to me you insufferable moron.
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your >>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>amusement, Tony:
You are replying to Crash.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can killRidiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour sarcasm is pitiful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then >>reply to me you insufferable moron.
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls >>>>your
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
politics out. Yes I thought so.
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>amusement, Tony:
You are replying to Crash.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can killRidiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour sarcasm is pitiful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>>>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
implications of EVs - fact.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls >>>>>your
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
politics out. Yes I thought so.
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>amusement, Tony:
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can killRidiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>You are replying to Crash.
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyAlready done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your own research, something you have so far not done.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour sarcasm is pitiful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk >>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
able to.
Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
implications of EVs - fact.
Zealand
- we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countriesWho cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
for a start.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites >>>>then
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls >>>>>>your
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
politics out. Yes I thought so.
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>>amusement, Tony:
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill >>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>>You are replying to Crash.Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyAlready done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your >own research, something you have so far not done.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony. >>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous. >>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the >>>>>>>>>>>risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
able to.
And there is just one reason . . .Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
implications of EVs - fact.
Zealand
- we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
for a start.
Sorry I don't know what vehicles Seymour and Peters drive, but theyWho cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites >>>>>then
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!politics out. Yes I thought so.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites? >>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls >>>>>>>your
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>>>amusement, Tony:
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill >>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>>>You are replying to Crash.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous >>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>>>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own research.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyAlready done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your >>own research, something you have so far not done.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous. >>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change, >>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony. >>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the >>>>>>>>>>>risk
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>the
risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
able to.
deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
it is.What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.
And there is just one reason . . .Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
implications of EVs - fact.
Zealand
- we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
for a start.
Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all. Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites >>>>>>then
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!politics out. Yes I thought so.
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of >>>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites? >>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls >>>>>>>>your
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill >>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate. >>>>>>>>>
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous >>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought >>>>>>>>>through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own >research.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a >>deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous. >>>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change, >>>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony. >>>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science.There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>risk
See this.
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
you are referring to?
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to >>>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort >>>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
able to.
own research, something you have so far not done.
it is.What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.
And there is just one reason . . .Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New >>>>Zealand
implications of EVs - fact.
- we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
for a start.
Tony sees partisan politics in everything. What an idiot.
Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all. >Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites >>>>>>>then
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!your
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites? >>>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
politics out. Yes I thought so.
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill >>>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous >>>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just >>>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:04:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no evidence to show that is correct - stop posting silly opinions and post some facts.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own >>research.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a >>>deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do >>>>your
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be >>>>>able to.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous. >>>>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change, >>>>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony. >>>>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
So say those who cannot follow logic or science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>See this.you are referring to?
Part 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
risks
and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Time to accept there is a risk and take action. >>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>risk
What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
own research, something you have so far not done.
it is.What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.
And there is just one reason . . .Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
We don't yet understand the fullSo what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New >>>>>Zealand
implications of EVs - fact.
- we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
for a start.
A reason why New Zealand is better using electricity for energy than
coal or gas or petroleum. We cannot get rid of all those other sources
of energy, but electricity gives us the ability to increase supply
more efficiently than in any other way.
Yes you are an idiot but we all know that.Tony sees partisan politics in everything. What an idiot.
Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all. >>Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
You are toeing the party line - fact.What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine >>>>>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political >>>>>>>>sites
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your >>>>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!your
The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the >>>>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political >>>>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part >>>>>>>>>>>of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites? >>>>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that >>>>>>>>>>calls
politics out. Yes I thought so.
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your >>>>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
then
reply to me you insufferable moron.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill >>>>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony? >>>>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon >>>>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in >>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes >>>>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to >>>>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>
Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous >>>>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
Off topic political rhetoric.
and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by >>>>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public >>>>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy >>>>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
The article does however highlight that the government had not >>>>>>>>>>>thought
through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done >>>>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to >>>>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
leave users to accept the risks . . .
From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something >>>>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the >>>>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally >>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have >>>>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 05:58:45 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,802 |
| Posted today: | 1 |