https://centrist.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal/
This is some what a long read of the fire risks of EV's and the state of the >protcols to deal with them.
Many of the points have been discussed here in this ng. Nevertheless there >are some points which one may not be aware of.
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I
doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but
not forced on the public.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but
not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in
this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced",
the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a
greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your tiny mind.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but
not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in
this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced",
the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an
attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >emission targets when we could have saved the country money by
continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower
emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the
levels set by the previous government, but again the political
rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the
unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your tiny >mind.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in
this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced",
the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by
continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower
emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the
levels set by the previous government, but again the political
rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyUnlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And some people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your tiny >>mind.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in
this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced",
the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by
continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political
rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >article.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - theyThere is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few,
at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about
climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right"
have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to
tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths -
already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of
ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in theNonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles;
arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate changeNo, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported bullshit at that.
on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to
roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage
of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored
than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across
Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As
Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show
that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are
entitled . . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyUnlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And some >people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of. >> Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your tiny >>>mind.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political
rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>article.
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few,There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right"
have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths -
already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of
ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
You really don't trust anything that is not privately owned, don't youNonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the
world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles;
Did you realise that the ships Willis proposes to buy will not havearguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate changeNo, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported bullshit
on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to
roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage
of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored
than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across
Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As
Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show
that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are
entitled . . . .
at that.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyUnlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And >>some
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your >>>>tiny
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>article.
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of. >>> Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few,There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right"
have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths -
already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of
ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids
getting used to tobacco . . .
Idiotic abuse removed.Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the
world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles;
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate changeNo, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>bullshit
on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage
of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show
that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are
entitled . . . .
at that.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you reallyIrrel;evant drivel.
think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And >>>some
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your >>>>>tiny
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>article.
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of. >>>> Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths -There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids
getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
No abuse - but I can understand if you think Seymour is abusing hisIdiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate changeNo, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>bullshit
on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage
of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>entitled . . . .
at that.
Irrel;evant drivel.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a lie, you know that it is a left wing site, that has been shown to you several times. You are a serail liar and it matters not what you are told - you just lie anyway.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And >>>>some
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject >>>>>- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>>article.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your >>>>>>tiny
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - theyThere is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths - >>>>>already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids
getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
You have been given this link before:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.
On theYes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you disgust us all in this group.
left/right axis ACT has been slightly to the right of National for a
long time now. I am sorry if you are having period problems but that
is not really relevant to this thread.
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of allThey are not Far RIght you imbecile.
parties on the chart.
If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your >strange opinion.Already done several times. You [prove that your lies are in fact truths - you cannot and never will.
No abuse -Idiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
"And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind toMore lies.
ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare
system would be one of them.
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system wasGood, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.
needed as it was not working as is.
"Fundamentally, for the number of patients and their demands and theNo, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.
amount of money that's going in we've got very good health
professionals stuck in the middle and the system is failing them and
the patients."
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll haveIndeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know - you are terrified of what it might prove.
more to say about that in 2025." "
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate change >>>>>on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage >>>>>of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>>entitled . . . .No, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>>bullshit
at that.
Irrel;evant drivel.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a lie, you know that it is a left wing site, that has been shown to you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on >>>>vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And >>>>>some
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject >>>>>>- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>>>article.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your >>>>>>>tiny
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I >>>>>>>>>>doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>>>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept of.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - theyThere is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying.
want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths - >>>>>>already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.
getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
You have been given this link before: >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.
several times. You are a serail liar and it matters not what you are told - >you just lie anyway.
Are you having a mental episode, Tony?On theYes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you >disgust us all in this group.
left/right axis ACT has been slightly to the right of National for a
long time now. I am sorry if you are having period problems but that
is not really relevant to this thread.
Look at the chart for NewOf course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all >>parties on the chart.They are not Far RIght you imbecile.
You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupportedAlready done several times. You [prove that your lies are in fact truths - you >cannot and never will.
If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your >>strange opinion.
No abuse -Idiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
More abuse. . >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour
What bullshit, did you write it?
More lies.
"And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to
ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare
system would be one of them.
Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was >>needed as it was not working as is.
No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.
"Fundamentally, for the number of patients and their demands and the
amount of money that's going in we've got very good health
professionals stuck in the middle and the system is failing them and
the patients."
Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know -
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "
you are terrified of what it might prove.
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate change >>>>>>on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage >>>>>>of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>>>entitled . . . .No, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>>>bullshit
at that.
Irrel;evant drivel.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>>>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you have had that demonstrated many times.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a lie, you know that it is a left wing site, that has been shown to >>you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And >>>>>>some
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject >>>>>>>- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>>>>article.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your >>>>>>>>tiny
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I
doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but >>>>>>>>>>>not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a >>>>>>>>>>greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened.
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting >>>>>>>>>emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept >>>>>>of.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they >>>>>>>want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths - >>>>>>>already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying. >>>>>Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on >>>>>vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids >>>>>getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
You have been given this link before: >>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.
several times. You are a serail liar and it matters not what you are told - >>you just lie anyway.
No, you have asserted that it is left wing, but never with any
explanation for that absurd assertion, or even giving an explanation
of why you have such a strange idea.
Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you disgust us.Are you having a mental episode, Tony?On theYes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you >>disgust us all in this group.
left/right axis ACT has been slightly to the right of National for a
long time now. I am sorry if you are having period problems but that
is not really relevant to this thread.
Bullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and international standards. You are a liar.Look at the chart for NewOf course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all >>>parties on the chart.They are not Far RIght you imbecile.
about it, Tony.
I have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupportedAlready done several times. You [prove that your lies are in fact truths - >>you
If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your >>>strange opinion.
cannot and never will.
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.
You lied. I never do.
No abuse -Idiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>>>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
More abuse. . >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour
What bullshit, did you write it?
More lies.
"And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to
ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare
system would be one of them.
It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?
Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was >>>needed as it was not working as is.
No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.
"Fundamentally, for the number of patients and their demands and the >>>amount of money that's going in we've got very good health
professionals stuck in the middle and the system is failing them and
the patients."
Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know >>-
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "
you are terrified of what it might prove.
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate change >>>>>>>on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage >>>>>>>of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>>>>entitled . . . .No, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>>>>bullshit
at that.
Irrel;evant drivel.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>>>>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have not seen any such demonstration, from either you or anyone
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you have
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie, you know that it is a left wing site, that has been shown to >>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. And
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" then I
doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised but
not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to a
greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened. >>>>>>>>>>>
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not meeting
emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
tiny
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you? >>>>>>>>I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject >>>>>>>>- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>>>>>article.
some
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no concept >>>>>>>of.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they >>>>>>>>want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>>>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>>>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>>>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>>>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths - >>>>>>>>already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>>>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying. >>>>>>Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on >>>>>>vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids >>>>>>getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
You have been given this link before: >>>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.
several times. You are a serail liar and it matters not what you are told - >>>you just lie anyway.
No, you have asserted that it is left wing, but never with any
explanation for that absurd assertion, or even giving an explanation
of why you have such a strange idea.
had that demonstrated many times.
Who besides you is asserting such disgust, Tony?Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you disgust
Are you having a mental episode, Tony?On theYes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you >>>disgust us all in this group.
left/right axis ACT has been slightly to the right of National for a >>>>long time now. I am sorry if you are having period problems but that
is not really relevant to this thread.
us.
So show us those national and international standards - at present allBullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and >international standards. You are a liar.
Look at the chart for NewOf course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up >>about it, Tony.
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all >>>>parties on the chart.They are not Far RIght you imbecile.
You have not given or been able to refer to any facts that you haveI have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.
You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupportedAlready done several times. You [prove that your lies are in fact truths - >>>you
If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your >>>>strange opinion.
cannot and never will.
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.
Not what I asked - do you believe the article that says that SeymourYou lied. I never do.No abuse -Idiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>>>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>>>>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
More abuse. . >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour
What bullshit, did you write it?
More lies.
"And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to
ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare >>>>system would be one of them.
It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?
Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was >>>>needed as it was not working as is.
No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.
"Fundamentally, for the number of patients and their demands and the >>>>amount of money that's going in we've got very good health >>>>professionals stuck in the middle and the system is failing them and >>>>the patients."
Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "
-
you are terrified of what it might prove.
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate change >>>>>>>>on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>>>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage >>>>>>>>of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>>>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>>>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>>>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>>>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>>>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>>>>>entitled . . . .No, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>>>>>bullshit
at that.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>>>>>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem? >>>>>Irrel;evant drivel.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:37:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes there is. Repeating your lie does not negate it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have not seen any such demonstration, from either you or anyone
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you >>have
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie, you know that it is a left wing site, that has been shown to >>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Unlike you, most people know how to retrieve easily that information. >>>>>>>>And
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:11:01 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in >>>>>>>>>>your
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>As soon as I saw this "Labour/Greens forced EVs on the public" >>>>>>>>>>>>>then I
doubted the veracity of the entire article. EVs were subsidised >>>>>>>>>>>>>but
not forced on the public.
The whole point of subsidisation is that it increases uptake -- in >>>>>>>>>>>>this case, public uptake. While no individual person was "forced", >>>>>>>>>>>>the public group was indeed "forced", i.e., financially induced, to >>>>>>>>>>>>a
greater uptake of EVs than would otherwise have happened. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So there we have the Centrist making a shallow dive - this may be an >>>>>>>>>>>attempt to distract from the stupidity of paying money for not >>>>>>>>>>>meeting
emission targets when we could have saved the country money by >>>>>>>>>>>continuing the mild encouragement of more fuel efficient and lower >>>>>>>>>>>emitting vehicles. Encouragement is not forcing people at all at the >>>>>>>>>>>levels set by the previous government, but again the political >>>>>>>>>>>rhetoric outweighs sensible discussion by "The Centrist," and the >>>>>>>>>>>unthinking followers just lap it up . . .
tiny
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you? >>>>>>>>>I note that the link was deleted in the third post under this subject >>>>>>>>>- clearly Willy Nilly did not want readers to actually reflect on the >>>>>>>>>article.
some
people like to reduce the size of a post - something you have no >>>>>>>>concept
of.
Alarmist articles from the far-right are not uncommon - they >>>>>>>>>want unfettered extractive industries to deliver profits for the few, >>>>>>>>>at the expense of the many - they don't care about clean air or about >>>>>>>>>climate change. But with some things the only response the "Right" >>>>>>>>>have is to try to shut down discussion. We have seen that payback to >>>>>>>>>tobacco company support is more important than tobacco deaths - >>>>>>>>>already reductions in smoking have slowed under the influence of >>>>>>>>>ACT/Nat pay-back for tobacco industry support.There is no suggestion this is from the far right - you are lying. >>>>>>>Of course there is - do you deny that ACT pushed to lower taxes on >>>>>>>vapes that will benefit a tobacco company? Pity about the kids >>>>>>>getting used to tobacco . . .
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.
You have been given this link before: >>>>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.
several times. You are a serail liar and it matters not what you are told >>>>-
you just lie anyway.
No, you have asserted that it is left wing, but never with any >>>explanation for that absurd assertion, or even giving an explanation
of why you have such a strange idea.
had that demonstrated many times.
else. You keep asserting that you have provided evidence of your
assertion but there is none in either your recent post or any others.
Your comment was obviously a slur against women. You are disgusting.Who besides you is asserting such disgust, Tony?Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you >>disgust
Are you having a mental episode, Tony?On theYes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you >>>>disgust us all in this group.
left/right axis ACT has been slightly to the right of National for a >>>>>long time now. I am sorry if you are having period problems but that >>>>>is not really relevant to this thread.
us.
You are lying and you know it.So show us those national and international standards - at present allBullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and >>international standards. You are a liar.
Look at the chart for NewOf course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up >>>about it, Tony.
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all >>>>>parties on the chart.They are not Far RIght you imbecile.
you have are unsupported assertions that appear not to be shared by
anyone other than you.
They are nothing else. And you have never provided evidence that they are anything else.You have not given or been able to refer to any facts that you haveI have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.
You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupported >>>opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your >>>opinion.Already done several times. You [prove that your lies are in fact truths - >>>>you
If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your >>>>>strange opinion.
cannot and never will.
provided that anyone other than you believes that the ACT party is
accurately described as "centre-right".
I don't care. He did not hint.Not what I asked - do you believe the article that says that SeymourYou lied. I never do.No abuse -Idiotic abuse removed.
The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the >>>>>>>>>world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles; >>>>>>>>Nonsense - find evidence of that or go away.
More abuse. . >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour
What bullshit, did you write it?
More lies.
"And while it's not yet December he's already turning his mind to >>>>>ideas ACT might push next year, hinting privatising the healthcare >>>>>system would be one of them.
It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?
hinted that privatising the healthcare system would be an idea he
would push next year?
Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was >>>>>needed as it was not working as is.
No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.
"Fundamentally, for the number of patients and their demands and the >>>>>amount of money that's going in we've got very good health >>>>>professionals stuck in the middle and the system is failing them and >>>>>the patients."
Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all >>>>know
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have >>>>>more to say about that in 2025." "
-
you are terrified of what it might prove.
Off topic stupidity removed.arguably we are less well prepared for the effects of climate change >>>>>>>>>on the prevalence of fires and storms; we underestimate the danger to >>>>>>>>>roads from slips and earthquakes, and we underestimate the advantage >>>>>>>>>of keeping a functioning rail system than can be more easily restored >>>>>>>>>than some highways - and the stupidity of cutting the rail link across >>>>>>>>>Cook Strait is something that Nicola Willis is actively avoiding. As >>>>>>>>>Luxon would say to you, Tony, buying an EV is what people do to show >>>>>>>>>that they are sorted - so suck it up, Tony - the reality is that the >>>>>>>>>government does not care about problems with EVs - and they are >>>>>>>>>entitled . . . .No, you substandrad troll, all that you wrote is bullshit. Unsupported >>>>>>>>bullshit
at that.
But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really >>>>>>>think our fire service has ignored the potential problem? >>>>>>Irrel;evant drivel.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:58:16 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,667 |