Maybe UK govt are not crazy

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

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 .

And yet that's exactly what you did on here, and you and Ken have been doing since the spring, especially if I pushback on your many, many denial posts.

Perhaps it is time you stopped your games and all this double talk, I'm bored of it, and I suspect everybody else is too.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And yet that's exactly what you did on here, and you and Ken have been doing since the spring, especially if I pushback on your many, many denial posts.

Perhaps it is time you stopped your games and all this double talk, I'm bored of it, and I suspect everybody else is too.

The difference is Mart, I respect other people's opinion and their right to express them. That's something you seem to have a problem with.

silverwhistle

Hmm, that's a classic right wing complaint, that they're not allowed to express their views. Must be our rabid left wing media, I suppose such as er.. do Momentum have a newsletter?



I can't be arsed to go back in this thread, but rights to expression have a limit: the old 'shouting fire in a crowded cinema' analogy, or just plain dissemination of misinformation. One may well think the earth is flat, but going on about it and expressing one's opinion on the matter everywhere may not be a reasonable position, even if you have the right to express any old c**p.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

Hmm, that's a classic right wing complaint, that they're not allowed to express their views. Must be our rabid left wing media, I suppose such as er.. do Momentum have a newsletter?

Funny how things change over time. Once it used to be the liberals who championed free speech and the conservatives who railed against it. Now it is the liberals who are increasingly authoritarian wanting to shut down free speech.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The difference is Mart, I respect other people's opinion and their right to express them. That's something you seem to have a problem with.

Nope, not true. You and Ken have been attacking my opinion and right to an opinion for half a year now. Most of your posts have been rude and insulting. And as several posters have noted, you like to assign false claims to me via your habit of 'so what you are saying is'.

This thread is a perfect example, we get some gibberish posted that attacks RE, and includes a number of rude statements both at me, and RE in general, so you and Ken both join the discussion simply to have a go at me.

I'm not going to change no matter how much longer you keep this up, I reject your fundamental position, I support RE, science and facts, I reject morally bankrupt arguments that include FF denials and try to deny reality.

I would suggest you both now stop, I'm bored of you, as I suggest most others are too. If you don't like my views, then you and Ken should place me on ignore instead of constantly starting new arguments.

Thank you for your time.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This thread is a perfect example, we get some gibberish posted that attacks RE, and includes a number of rude statements both at me, and RE in general....

This is the problem in a nutshell ... you've put yourself & RE in the same box so that anything negative said about RE is an 'attack' on you personally.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, not true. You and Ken have been attacking my opinion and right to an opinion for half a year now. Most of your posts have been rude and insulting. And as several posters have noted, you like to assign false claims to me via your habit of 'so what you are saying is'.

This thread is a perfect example, we get some gibberish posted that attacks RE, and includes a number of rude statements both at me, and RE in general, so you and Ken both join the discussion simply to have a go at me.

I'm not going to change no matter how much longer you keep this up, I reject your fundamental position, I support RE, science and facts, I reject morally bankrupt arguments that include FF denials and try to deny reality.

I would suggest you both now stop, I'm bored of you, as I suggest most others are too. If you don't like my views, then you and Ken should place me on ignore instead of constantly starting new arguments.

Thank you for your time.

You do misrepresent things, Mart. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and to express it. The things you and I tend to disagree on are your obsession with litigation against FF companies, the comic book opinions you post from eco activists that you take as fact and your obsession with pigeon-holing people and trying to make it about sides.

For me it isn’t about sides, its about the issues. I can be pro RE and pro BEV but at the same time look at the drawbacks and limitations. You see things in black and white and I see them as shades of grey. If I were to comment that there are build quality issues with Tesla you would see that as FUD and that I was anti Tesla which is totally not the case.

As you frequently point out this is a green and ethical board (and as I point out it is on a money saving forum). There will be a mix of people on here, some who are interested in the technology for saving the planet and perhaps to a lesser extent the money saving aspect and others who enjoy the green technology because it is tech and others who see it just as a way of saving money. All should be welcome on here.

You are the green tech cheerleader who will hear nothing of the drawbacks whereas others can see where more work is needed to reach RE Nirvana. Dismissing anything you don’t want to hear as FUD, spin or coming from FF deniers doesn’t make for a harmonious discussion.

I note that you are claiming that Nick and I are being rude not just to you but to RE. The latter I find an interesting concept implying that RE is an entity or an organisation or maybe a ‘religion’, belief system or perhaps a cause.

I keep repeating this, but I do agree with some of what you post (just not all) and anyone who wants to look back will find I frequently ‘thank’ posts from you. I do though find it difficult to engage with you at times - I genuinely was interested to know if you had bought an Ev as I was under the impression that you needed one to sign up to the OVO trial but you didn’t respond to my post.

I have noticed a change in the eighteen months I have been on this forum from Mart as the go-to-guy for good advice to Mart the paranoid campaigning Eco-zealot. It would be good to have the old Mart back.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This thread is a perfect example, we get some gibberish posted that attacks RE, and includes a number of rude statements both at me, and RE in general, so you and Ken both join the discussion simply to have a go at me.

Further to my previous post I just want to set the record straight in relation to the above comment. I had no involvement on this thread until post #57 when I decided to respond after you made 3 references to me in 3 separate posts. Just to remind you:

In post #46 you make the first reference to me (being one of the amigos) “I appreciate that you and the other two Amigos are open to denial”

In post #51 you say “ 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.”

In post #56 you say “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....”

Nick had already been engaged in the discussion on the thread before he pulled you up on your discourteous post and I didn’t respond until you had had 3 “digs” at me so claiming “you (Nick) and Ken both join the discussion simply to have a go at me“ just isn’t going to wash.

If you are going to have 3 goes at someone who hasn’t been involved in the thread should you really be surprised when they do respond? I think it’s time you stopped playing the victim in all this and had a serious think about maybe going about things a little differently.

leviathan

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Originally Posted by leviathan
PPS: the cost of building nuclear power stations and the subsidies for the price per MW also dont factor. If we are serious we need to stop all that crap and nationalise power production and charge at cost. Nuclear should not be run for profit, no energy should. Dont even start on RE which is a transfer of wealth exercise and has nothing greeen about it other than virtue signalling. Same as FiT's and solar PV.

This is not green, it's an attack on green energy, and done in an extremely rude and false way. And in this post you actually attack me as a 'zealot' and claim I've wasted my time for knowing what I'm talking about, and for challenging your false claims.

You are a zealot becasue you cannot understand the simple difference between an attack on green energy and an attack on the funding of green energy to make it competative in the energy market.



I have solar PV and I have solar thermal on my house.
I dont however get FiT's. I bought my stuff second hand for my own benefit. I've also done a variety of other things that I'd say my green credentials (my green footprint) are likely higher/better than yours, but this thread isn't a competition of who is greener than most. It's about why RE technology requires subsidies to work vs letting market forces drive the solution.



Can you honestly say that the reason you went with solar PV at your property was to do with saving the planet and not because of the FiT payments you are getting every month for it?


And if you answer yes I assume you're giving the profit to greenpeace.