So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
See this.
Part 1
https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
admit they are not prepared.
and part 2
https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously

Time to accept there is a risk and take action.

On 2024-04-09, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
> See this.
> Part 1
> https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
> NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
> admit they are not prepared.
> and part 2
> https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
> Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>
> Time to accept there is a risk and take action.

There is no doubt that fossil fuelled vehilces have caused casulaties and
deaths. However we have come to live with it and reduce the risk/damage.

The EV fire is so much more insense and hotter that it sets all the other EVs
off next to it, this is the massive danger as I see it. If people can not
bet away from the car, it will cause the fire to spread. Louton air port car
park shows what can happen also another which I can not remember.

As the article points out this is just another result of Woke thinking that
EVs are so great. Like the rest of the issues with EVs the safety matter
will improve, if and only if the masses see death from and EV fire.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>See this.
>Part 1
>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
>admit they are not prepared.
>and part 2
>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>
>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
you are referring to?

And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>See this.
>>Part 1
>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks
>>and
>>admit they are not prepared.
>>and part 2
>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>
>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>you are referring to?
You know which risk I was referring to but your pig-headed refusal to engage
your last remaining brain cell is of concern to absolutely nobody that matters.
>
>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
And of course your posts are dangerous - but I digress, EVs are arguably more
dangersous than any other vehicles quite simply because we have yet to
understand how to make them safe (unlike other vehicles). Do take a course in
logic. Perhaps a 3rd form lesson or two in basic science would help you.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>See this.
>>Part 1
>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
>>admit they are not prepared.
>>and part 2
>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>
>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>you are referring to?

What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
to illogical irrelevancies.
>
>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous

--
Crash McBash

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>See this.
>>>Part 1
>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>and part 2
>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>
>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>you are referring to?
>
>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>to illogical irrelevancies.

The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?

If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
unacceptable?

Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.

Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous

and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
transport to be by road rather than rail . . .

The article does however highlight that the government had not through
these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
leave users to accept the risks . . .

From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>See this.
>>>>Part 1
>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks
>>>>and
>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>and part 2
>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>
>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>you are referring to?
>>
>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>
>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your
politics out. Yes I thought so.
>
>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>unacceptable?
>
>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>
>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>
>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>
>The article does however highlight that the government had not through
>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>
>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
Off topic political rhetoric.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:46:07 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>See this.
>>>>Part 1
>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks and
>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>and part 2
>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>
>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>you are referring to?
>>
>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>
>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>effect.

Agreed. The article Tony cited is a viewpoint that includes some
interesting information. I could take a leaf out of your posting
habits and thank you for agreeing with my submission that your
previous post was stupid.

> Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>
So you say -0 but as usual with no cite.

>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>unacceptable?
>
Seems self-evident to me. I don't own a Tesla but I do own a BEV so I
of the same view. The article is of no more interest.

>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>
You have clearly run out of anything further to say on topic so as
usual you spout worthless political rhetoric.

>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>
>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>
>The article does however highlight that the government had not through
>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>
>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .

You have wasted time ranting on peripheral issues to the safety of
BEVs and wandered off into political-rhetoric and again.

--
Crash McBash

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>See this.
>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the risks
>>>>>and
>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>
>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>you are referring to?
>>>
>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.

>>
>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your
>politics out. Yes I thought so.
I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
amusement, Tony:
https://www.national.org.nz/ https://www.labour.org.nz
https://www.act.org.nz/ https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/ https://www.greens.org.nz/
https://www.nzfirst.nz/ https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/
https://www.nzcpr.com/ https://norightturn.blogspot.com/
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ https://thestandard.org.nz/
https://waikanaewatch.org/ https://www.groundswellnz.co.nz/
https://nznewsessentials.com/?query-0-page=2

>>
>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>unacceptable?
>>
>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>
>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>
>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>
>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought through
>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>
>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>Off topic political rhetoric.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>
>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>
>>>
>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your
>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>amusement, Tony:
You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then
reply to me you insufferable moron.
>
>>>
>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>unacceptable?
>>>
>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>
>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
You are replying to Crash.
>>>
>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>
>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>through
>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>
>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>Off topic political rhetoric.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>
>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.

>>
>>>>
>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls your
>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>amusement, Tony:
>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then
>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>
>>>>
>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>
>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>
>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>
>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>
>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>through
>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>
>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
Your sarcasm is pitiful.
EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact. We don't yet understand the full
implications of EVs - fact. You are toeing the party line - fact.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>your
>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>amusement, Tony:
>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then
>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>
>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>through
>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
able to.

>We don't yet understand the full
>implications of EVs - fact.
So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
Zealand - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
for a start.

>You are toeing the party line - fact.
What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>>your
>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites then
>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>>through
>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
>So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
>able to.
Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your
own research, something you have so far not done.
>
>>We don't yet understand the full
>>implications of EVs - fact.
>So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
>Zealand
Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
> - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
>for a start.
>
>>You are toeing the party line - fact.
>What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites
>>>>then
>>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed the
>>>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the risk
>>>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>>>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
>>So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
>>able to.
>Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your
>own research, something you have so far not done.
Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
it is.

>>
>>>We don't yet understand the full
>>>implications of EVs - fact.
>>So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
>>Zealand
>Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
>> - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
>>for a start.
And there is just one reason . . .

>>
>>>You are toeing the party line - fact.
>>What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
>>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
>Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
Sorry I don't know what vehicles Seymour and Peters drive, but they
too will use Ministerial hybrid vehicles. If its good enough for them
and the country, why are they not good enough for you, Tony?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites
>>>>>then
>>>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>risk
>>>>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>>>>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
>>>So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
>>>able to.
>>Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your
>>own research, something you have so far not done.
>Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
>deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
No you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own
research.
>it is.
>
>>>
>>>>We don't yet understand the full
>>>>implications of EVs - fact.
>>>So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
>>>Zealand
>>Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
>>> - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
>>>for a start.
>And there is just one reason . . .
What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.
>
>>>
>>>>You are toeing the party line - fact.
>>>What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
>>>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
>>Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>>>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>>>>>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
>>>>So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
>>>>able to.
>>>Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do your
>>>own research, something you have so far not done.
>>Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
>>deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
>No you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own
>research.
>>it is.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>We don't yet understand the full
>>>>>implications of EVs - fact.
>>>>So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
>>>>Zealand
>>>Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
>>>> - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
>>>>for a start.
>>And there is just one reason . . .
>What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.

A reason why New Zealand is better using electricity for energy than
coal or gas or petroleum. We cannot get rid of all those other sources
of energy, but electricity gives us the ability to increase supply
more efficiently than in any other way.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>You are toeing the party line - fact.
>>>>What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
>>>>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
>>>Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
>Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
Tony sees partisan politics in everything. What an idiot.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part of
>>>>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that calls
>>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>>>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political sites
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not thought
>>>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:04:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:16:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:35:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:36:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 20:08:40 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:51:04 +1200, Rich80105
>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:43:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So say those who cannot follow logic or science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>See this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NZTA, Maritime NZ and FENZ are concerned enough to have reviewed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>risks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>admit they are not prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and part 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://centrist.co.nz/nz-unprepared-for-ev-fire-risks-oia-documents-reveal-part-2/?utm_source=mailchimp-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-9-apr-24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maritime NZ are concerned enough to take it seriously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Time to accept there is a risk and take action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a risk from reading Atlas Network websites - is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>you are referring to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What a plainly stupid statement Rich. Tony was clearly referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>the thread subject. You clearly have no rational rebuttal so resort
>>>>>>>>>>>>to illogical irrelevancies.
>>>>>>>>>With a few minor reservations, I agree that EVs are not dangerous.
>>>>>>>>You are agreeing with yourself then, well done, that makes a change,
>>>>>>>I was agreeing to the Subject of the Thread - that was not me, Tony.
>>>>>>Your sarcasm is pitiful.
>>>>>>EVs are higher risk than ICE vehicles - fact.
>>>>>So provide some evidence of that . . . . I predict you will not be
>>>>>able to.
>>>>Already done, multiuple times here in this newsgroup and you know it. Do
>>>>your
>>>>own research, something you have so far not done.
>>>Rubbish, you lie again. Anyone else would be embarrassed by such a
>>>deliberate lie, but you seem to believe something it true if you say
>>No you pathetic creature, no lie - multiple times posted here. Do your own
>>research.
>>>it is.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We don't yet understand the full
>>>>>>implications of EVs - fact.
>>>>>So what? We do know enough to be sure that they are good for New
>>>>>Zealand
>>>>Only an idiot believes that. It is yet to be demonstrated.
>>>>> - we can generate electricity more cheaply than most countries
>>>>>for a start.
>>>And there is just one reason . . .
>>What is that reason? And you ignore the reasons against.
>
>A reason why New Zealand is better using electricity for energy than
>coal or gas or petroleum. We cannot get rid of all those other sources
>of energy, but electricity gives us the ability to increase supply
>more efficiently than in any other way.
There is no evidence to show that is correct - stop posting silly opinions and
post some facts.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You are toeing the party line - fact.
>>>>>What party is that? Luxon bought a Tesla, and I expect the limousine
>>>>>he takes from his apartment to Parliament is electric as well.
>>>>Who cares, completely irrelevant. You know which party and so do we all.
>>Sarcasm removed - sarcasm is abuse when used the way Richturd uses it.
>Tony sees partisan politics in everything. What an idiot.
Yes you are an idiot but we all know that.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The world is working through the issues with EVs and fires, but the
>>>>>>>>>>>Centrist.co.nz articles are taking an extremist view for political
>>>>>>>>>>>effect. Did you not realise that the centrist.co.nz website is part
>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>the ever-changing NZ Taxpayer Union stable of propaganda sites?
>>>>>>>>>>So you hate it because they are a non-political organisation that
>>>>>>>>>>calls
>>>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>>>politics out. Yes I thought so.
>>>>>>>>>I don't hate any website. Tony - what gives you that idea? But your
>>>>>>>>>assertion that it is non-political is hilarious!
>>>>>>>>>On that basis here are some other non-political websites for your
>>>>>>>>>amusement, Tony:
>>>>>>>>You are relying to Crash, if you wish me to look at your political
>>>>>>>>sites
>>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>>reply to me you insufferable moron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If it is time to take action what is proposed? Christopher Luxon
>>>>>>>>>>>bought a Tesla - does he believe the risk of owning such a car in
>>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes they are discouraging them by inadequate justification for hikes
>>>>>>>>>>>to Road User Charges, but that is more about affording the bribes to
>>>>>>>>>>>Landlords and the now more difficult cut to the top tax rate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Of course Tony is wrong - as I said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And of course all vehicles are potentially dangerous
>>>>>>>>>>Ridiculous comment - just stupid.
>>>>>>>>>They are not all as bad as a Ford Pinto, but any vehicle can kill
>>>>>>>>>under a range of scenarios. Were you not aware of "Road Deaths", Tony?
>>>>>>>>You are replying to Crash.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>and the Coalition appears determined to make it more dangerous by
>>>>>>>>>>>overcrowding roads while increasing speed limits, making public
>>>>>>>>>>>transport more expensive and less useful, and encouraging heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>transport to be by road rather than rail . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The article does however highlight that the government had not
>>>>>>>>>>>thought
>>>>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>>>>these issues before they were elected, and have apparently done
>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to commission work on any changes they may be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>implement to mitigate those risks that have been identified - or just
>>>>>>>>>>>leave users to accept the risks . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>From the Taxpayer Union perspective, this is either an opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>increase user charges to make income tax cuts easier, or something
>>>>>>>>>>>that needs to be planned for because the alternative of limiting the
>>>>>>>>>>>marketplace by making electric vehicles too expensive is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>unacceptable . . . After all, wealthy car owners need to have
>>>>>>>>>>>Freedumb to buy whatever they want . . .
>>>>>>>>>>Off topic political rhetoric.