EV Fire Risks (Centrist dives deep)

[Gordon]

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.

[Crash]

Post by Gordon
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. An outrageous statement like this leads me
to conclude everything in the article could be similar crap.

I agree that fire risks do need to be assessed for all forms of motive
transport, however the article presents no evidence that the fire risk
of EVs is disproportionate to the percentage of the national fleet (ie
very small).

[Willy Nilly]

Post by Crash
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.

[Rich80105]

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your tiny
mind.
You hate any publication that asks people to think don't you?

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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. 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.

The reality is that New Zealand is as far ahead as anywhere in the
world in being prepared for vehicle fires from electric vehicles;
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 . . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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.

Post by Rich80105
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.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

You really don't trust anything that is not privately owned, don't you
Tony. Your are thoroughly indoctrinated to the point you cannot accept
anything not fed to you by the far-right. I hope you are wealthy
enough to afford health insurance when you get older Tony - ACT are
heading towards moving New Zealand towards private hospitals . . .

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Did you realise that the ships Willis proposes to buy will not have
room for a locomotive to get from the South Island to the North? That
means they will have to set up a separate maintenance operation in the
South Island . . ., and also potentially not having even rail
carriages, so that it would be necessary to rely on taking containers
by truck across the strait in either direction - supporting the
trucking industry at the expense of most New Zealanders.

But that is a little far away from fire risks from EVs - do you really
think our fire service has ignored the potential problem?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
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 the
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 New
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

If you believe that chart to be wrong, give credible evidence for your
strange opinion.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse - but I can understand if you think Seymour is abusing his
position as nominal leader (on behalf of the Atlas Network) of a small
political party in New Zealand . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

"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.

Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

"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."

"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.

That 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.

Post by Rich80105
On the
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.

Yes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you
disgust us all in this group.
Look at the chart for New

Post by Rich80105
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

They are not Far RIght you imbecile.

Post by Rich80105
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.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse -

More abuse. .

Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

What bullshit, did you write it?

Post by Rich80105
"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.

More lies.

Post by Rich80105
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.

Post by Rich80105
"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."

No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know -
you are terrified of what it might prove.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.

That 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.

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.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On the
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.

Yes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you
disgust us all in this group.

Are you having a mental episode, Tony?

Post by Tony
Look at the chart for New

Post by Rich80105
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

They are not Far RIght you imbecile.

Of course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
about it, Tony.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupported
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse -

More abuse. .

Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

What bullshit, did you write it?

Post by Rich80105
"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.

More lies.

It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.

Post by Rich80105
"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."

No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know -
you are terrified of what it might prove.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.

That 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.

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 absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you have
had that demonstrated many times.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On the
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.

Yes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you
disgust us all in this group.

Are you having a mental episode, Tony?

Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you disgust
us.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony
Look at the chart for New

Post by Rich80105
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

They are not Far RIght you imbecile.

Of course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
about it, Tony.

Bullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and
international standards. You are a liar.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupported
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.

I have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse -

More abuse. .

Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

What bullshit, did you write it?

Post by Rich80105
"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.

More lies.

It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?

You lied. I never do.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.

Post by Rich80105
"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."

No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know -
you are terrified of what it might prove.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:37:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in your 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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.

That 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.

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 absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you have
had that demonstrated many times.

I have not seen any such demonstration, from either you or anyone
else. You keep asserting that you have provided evidence of your
assertion but there is none in either your recent post or any others.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On the
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.

Yes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you
disgust us all in this group.

Are you having a mental episode, Tony?

Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you disgust
us.

Who besides you is asserting such disgust, Tony?

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony
Look at the chart for New

Post by Rich80105
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

They are not Far RIght you imbecile.

Of course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
about it, Tony.

Bullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and
international standards. You are a liar.

So show us those national and international standards - at present all
you have are unsupported assertions that appear not to be shared by
anyone other than you.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupported
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.

I have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.

You have not given or been able to refer to any facts that you have
provided that anyone other than you believes that the ACT party is
accurately described as "centre-right".

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse -

More abuse. .

Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

What bullshit, did you write it?

Post by Rich80105
"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.

More lies.

It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?

You lied. I never do.

Not what I asked - do you believe the article that says that Seymour
hinted that privatising the healthcare system would be an idea he
would push next year?

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.

Post by Rich80105
"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."

No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all know -
you are terrified of what it might prove.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:37:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:16:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:09:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Crash
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 . . .

No, they learn, you lap up the left wing lies and bathe in them in
your
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.

Unlike 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.

Post by Rich80105
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 . . .

"Of COurse" there is not. Period!
ACT are not far right and you know that. SO you are lying.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
and have not been able to show any reason not to believe it.

That 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.

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 absurd, your notion that it is balanced is the real absurdity. And you have
had that demonstrated many times.

I have not seen any such demonstration, from either you or anyone
else. You keep asserting that you have provided evidence of your
assertion but there is none in either your recent post or any others.

Yes there is. Repeating your lie does not negate it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On the
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.

Yes I know you hate women, sociopaths like you nearly always do. But you
disgust us all in this group.

Are you having a mental episode, Tony?

Not me, your nasty abuse of women noted by all who read your post - you disgust
us.

Who besides you is asserting such disgust, Tony?

Your comment was obviously a slur against women. You are disgusting.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony
Look at the chart for New

Post by Rich80105
Zealand 2017 - since then ACT has moved to the furthest right of all
parties on the chart.

They are not Far RIght you imbecile.

Of course they are. The link to the Atlas Network are strong - read up
about it, Tony.

Bullshit - you cannot sustain that lie. They are centre right by national and
international standards. You are a liar.

So show us those national and international standards - at present all
you have are unsupported assertions that appear not to be shared by
anyone other than you.

You are lying and you know it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

You lie, you have never given anything more than your unsupported
opinion. I do not believe you have any "evidence" to support your
opinion.

I have and it is you that continues to lie. I don't lie.

You have not given or been able to refer to any facts that you have
provided that anyone other than you believes that the ACT party is
accurately described as "centre-right".

They are nothing else. And you have never provided evidence that they are
anything else.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Idiotic abuse removed.

No abuse -

More abuse. .

Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534800/act-wielding-disproportionate-influence-in-government-david-seymour

What bullshit, did you write it?

Post by Rich80105
"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.

More lies.

It is a direct quote from David Seymour! Are you saying that he lied?

You lied. I never do.

Not what I asked - do you believe the article that says that Seymour
hinted that privatising the healthcare system would be an idea he
would push next year?

I don't care. He did not hint.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
Seymour said a conversation about the future of the health system was
needed as it was not working as is.

Good, we should always be prepared to talk - unlike you and the TPM.

Post by Rich80105
"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."

No, you and your ilk are failing New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
"I think that it is going to need to change and I think we'll have
more to say about that in 2025." "

Indeed we should - why don't you want the discussion? Eh? I think we all
know
-
you are terrified of what it might prove.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
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.

Off topic stupidity removed.

Post by Rich80105
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.