Maybe UK govt are not crazy

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As could you.

However that's not important to you is it? What we see on here is a post from Levaithan that is complete and total gibberish, yet I responded politely and gave all the correct information and data to show it was complete gibberish.

Then he responded with more gibberish, and ended his post with an insulting paragraph against RE.

You did not criticise his post.

So, as he'd opened the door, I then spoke truthfully and called his gibberish ...... gibberish. That seems fair and reasonable. I also pointed out how rude it is to post anti RE gibberish on a green and ethical board, that seems reasonable too.

His response was to insult me for having taken an interest in the subject, and for knowing what I was talking about.

At that stage you stepped in, as you always do when I push back on a G&E board against black lies, to attack me again, as you have been doing since the spring.

Perhaps you once again want to claim that my support of mitigation spending (what is happening all over the World), will bankrupt the UK as we spend every pennny of GDP on it for the next 30yrs - or perhaps you might want to stop lying with false claims about what I've said, or what I mean, and start acting in an appropriate manner on here.

You might chose to lie again, and falsely claim I'm denying someone the right to post on a public forum, but where I'm looking, the only person(s) doing that are you (and Ken) with your repeated attacks against me for defending RE and the truth.

So, pull you neck in Nick, if you want friendly chats, then I'm your man, but if you defend anti-RE gibberish, spread AGW denial, or post lies about me, then I will continue to push back, even if you 'don't like it up em!'

I'm actually laughing after reading this load of twaddle.:rotfl:

I try to be friendly Mart but you're always a hair's breath away from having a strop. Why do you need to 'punish' the poster rather than just simply disputing the content? You do seem to be rather consistent at starting hostilities & then blaming the other person.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I'm actually laughing after reading this load of twaddle.:rotfl:

I try to be friendly Mart but you're always a hair's breath away from having a strop. Why do you need to 'punish' the poster rather than just simply disputing the content? You do seem to be rather consistent at starting hostilities & then blaming the other person.

No strop Nick, just posting facts in response to lies and denials. And your consistent starting of hostilities whenever I challenge said lies, denials and ....... gibberish. And once again, you seem happy to condone Leviathan's comments,, your purpose on this thread now, seems simply to attack me once again.

So please stop all these digs and attacks, they won't work.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No strop Nick, just posting facts in response to lies and denials. And your consistent starting of hostilities whenever I challenge said lies, denials and ....... gibberish. And once again, you seem happy to condone Leviathan's comments,, your purpose on this thread now, seems simply to attack me once again.

So please stop all these digs and attacks, they won't work.

It's not the "challenge" that's the problem ... it's the way you go about it.

Solarchaser

Says the guy that posted purely to attack the poster...

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

It's not the "challenge" that's the problem ... it's the way you go about it.

I posted a patient and polite response, and got a rude reply attacking RE in general.

I then posted a forthright (but polite) response, repeating the information I'd already given, but that had been ignored, and got another rude response. [I also included a final paragraph in the vain hope that it would prevent you from 'going off on yet another one.']

At this point, instead of staying out of it, or thanking me, or challenging Lev, you instead decided, once again, to 'attack' me.

Nick, I appreciate that you are feeling extremely frustrated now, you (and Ken) invested a lot of time and energy this year into starting arguments with me, to stir up trouble, but I'm not going to be pushed off the G&E board, so perhaps it is now time to wind your neck in, and stop this pointless 'game' of yours. I'm bored of it, and I suspect everyone else is too.

All the best.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I posted a patient and polite response, and got a rude reply attacking RE in general.

I then posted a forthright (but polite) response, repeating the information I'd already given, but that had been ignored, and got another rude response. [I also included a final paragraph in the vain hope that it would prevent you from 'going off on yet another one.']

At this point, instead of staying out of it, or thanking me, or challenging Lev, you instead decided, once again, to 'attack' me.

Nick, I appreciate that you are feeling extremely frustrated now, you (and Ken) invested a lot of time and energy this year into starting arguments with me, to stir up trouble, but I'm not going to be pushed off the G&E board, so perhaps it is now time to wind your neck in, and stop this pointless 'game' of yours. I'm bored of it, and I suspect everyone else is too.

All the best.

I am not playing games and I don’t think Nick is either. It is just that there are some things on which we don’t share your view. There are other contributors who I disagree with and who disagree with me. We usually have a short exchange of views and move on to the next topic with no baggage. I think that’s the same for Nick. It’s a bit like real life where you have friends who you have a disagreement with one day and a laugh the next.

It is the inability to move on, to forgive and forget, that characterises your posts and leads you to believe that people are running campaigns against you and that is not just now but going back years.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Says the guy that posted purely to attack the poster...

Ditto... ad infinitum

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I am not playing games and I don’t think Nick is either. It is just that there are some things on which we don’t share your view. There are other contributors who I disagree with and who disagree with me. We usually have a short exchange of views and move on to the next topic with no baggage. I think that’s the same for Nick. It’s a bit like real life where you have friends who you have a disagreement with one day and a laugh the next.

It is the inability to move on, to forgive and forget, that characterises your posts and leads you to believe that people are running campaigns against you and that is not just now but going back years.

I'm bored, and I suspect everyone else is now too with yours and Nicks little game.

I will pushback against lies, FUD and denial. The fact that you don't like me doing this reflects poorly on you.

You might also wish to contemplate the success of your 'save the GA' campaign, too. Since you began it, I would suggest somewhere around 10 or so other posters have declared (out loud) their decision to follow suit and also place him on ignore. Again, not everyone is going to be tolerant of misinformation and outright denial, especially on a board such as this. You've repeatedly stated that you value opinion over fact, as facts change, well good luck with that, but don't attack me for sticking with the science and the facts.

Game over ....... hopefully.

almillar

Petrol golf £18,664
E golf £22,644 after government £3.5k grant
So £4000 more expensive

The only problem is I don't think the e golf is suitable replacement for the majority
It's only got about 85 miles winter motorway range which imo isn't suitable

Good example. eGolf used to be far too expensive. BTW, I think that 85 miles winter motorway range IS suitable for most. I live in NI so I would accept that we don't much that many motorway miles, and do shorter journeys.
Now, is that £18,664 for a similar spec of Golf? Do you need to adjust that price to add options? Automatic for a start.
Take off the Road Fund Licence (£0 per year for eGolf, £? for comparable petrol Golf), and petrol at today's prices, and at petrol Golf's combined MPG.
How long until eGolf pays off? Do we need to look at servicing costs?
I admit I got a really good deal on my Zoe, so it isn't really representative or repeatable these days, but it cost me £4,000 all in, excluding insurance to run for 15,000 miles. That was cheaper than a Clio.

USA market is more important it's almost 10z the size

The USA is not important at all, here, in the UK, where we all buy and run cars. How much does stuff cost HERE? You're aware you're on a UK consumer website, not a global businessman conference call?

Oh my god there is a frunk? Why didn't anyone tell me!!! I'll buy ten toight when I get home!
I have been crying all these decades for an ICE with a second small boot at the front. This is a game changer it has changed the game!!

(Sarcasm detected) So, when measuring the sizes of the cars, which you were comparing, the Model 3 came out bigger, excluding the Frunk, and you're still going to try to compare them? Compare Corolla, Focus, Astra to Leaf, and Model 3 to 3 Series, A4, C-Class like everyone else does. As I've said, if we're just trying to transport 'some people' and 'some stuff', you could argue that an i10 is all the car anyone needs, and everything else is wasteful!

All batteries degrade you're just arguing about percentages

Certainly. Less percentage than you're coming up with.

Both are easy to do filling up petrol or diesel once a month takes just five minutes to do

Only if you don't count driving to the petrol station. Seriously, time it!


leviathan

why is everyone in the industry up in arms about the grid and generation not having enough capacity?

They're not. At least, the National Grid isn't.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm bored, and I suspect everyone else is now too with yours and Nicks little game.

I will pushback against lies, FUD and denial. The fact that you don't like me doing this reflects poorly on you.

You might also wish to contemplate the success of your 'save the GA' campaign, too. Since you began it, I would suggest somewhere around 10 or so other posters have declared (out loud) their decision to follow suit and also place him on ignore. Again, not everyone is going to be tolerant of misinformation and outright denial, especially on a board such as this. You've repeatedly stated that you value opinion over fact, as facts change, well good luck with that, but don't attack me for sticking with the science and the facts.

Game over ....... hopefully.

I think you're getting a little hung up about "games" & "campaigns". Nobody is out to get you Mart, we're here to discuss something that we all have a common interest in ... just to different degrees.

Fortunately I don't need to put anyone on 'Ignore' because I'm quite capable of reading everything posted & then making up my own mind about it's worth.

If I read something I disagree with, I'll join the debate & discuss the point. What I don't do is take it as a personal affront & then feel I have to "challenge" & "pushback" which is of course confrontational .