Lee65

On 12/14/2023 at 6:34 PM, scottiejohn said:

What a morbid, so called, sense of humour!

At least your real mask has now fallen down and shown what a truly unsympathetic.......... person you must be!

Hang on a minute.  If it was "humour" then it was not serious and therefore not so bad.  And were it a serious comment, then it would not be humour.  Can't have it both ways!

Hint: it was intended as a reflection of the ridiculous attitudes by so many about the utility of masks and about those who don't want to wear them.  At least two people understood, god bless 'em.

1 hour ago, Bandersnatch said:

I love the regenerative breaking and not having to use the break pedal

Truth slipping out?  

4 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

Your topic really brought out the EV hating loonies

Ouch!  

Not everyone can appreciate your genius, sir.

Makes me upchuck even the thought of visiting Canada.

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

I really wonder what "accidental ignition" means

Spontaneous combustion?

Or that Avon Fire and Rescue Service spokesperson too cowardly to just say "We don't know" or "It was an EV" ?

Used Squawk Code 7700 meaning "Aircraft in an Emergency State".  One might imagine they could have predicted the fuel requirement to get to BKK?

Shocking stats re jibby jabs/ pilots and increase in 7700 squawks:

https://rumble.com/v40c5jy-uncensored-shane-murdock-pilot-warns-386-increase-in-mayday-calls-since-cov.html

2 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

... what is your verdict?

Illuminating.  All bow down to Saint George!  A great expose of politics running roughshod over common sense.  And of the stupid masses & media showing their stuff.

There was one issue poorly addressed in the film.  Did Chauvin - who used the technique he was taught - use it longer than was necessary.

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

When they hear that I am able to travel hundreds and thousands of kilometres on fresh air and sunshine alone, they all wish they have one as well. 

Well, I guess it's case closed then!

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

My point was that if a car has been smashed enough to damage the battery the rental company would not be handing it out to the next driver as the car would be so severely damaged as to be unusable. So your argument that EVs are bad because you might rent one and you don't know what the previous renter did to the battery is just nonsensical. You are inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios each time.

That was me inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios, not Lacessit (who was polite not to take credit).

Damage to the bottom of vehicle - where the battery pack is - would almost certainly be missed by the rental car company.  Ever bottomed out a vehicle on a back road strewn with large, embedded rocks?  I have - as might have a previous rental driver.  

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

One group is largely ignorant, the other tempered by experience.

Exactly!  

On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

I thought they were pretty well balanced and fair. Would be keen to hear feedback from any open minded anti-EV posters.

I thought they were ridiculous and exemplified the bias and low-level rationality/"science" to be expected from The Guardian.

I'm not "anti-EV" but rather an EV skeptic/realist.

On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

(Yeah yeah, the Guardian, lefty liberal, pushing the woke agenda, blah blah)

Your attempt to preempt reader's complaints about The Guardian betray your own lack of open-mindedness.

Hope we're even now.

5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah, so they faked it. You really have an extremely closed mind.

I have a functioning mind.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Just making the point while EV's are ideal for urban driving ...

Maybe ideal for urban driving; urban refueling not so much ...

2 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

Imagine, then you stop somewhere for a battery change, you just got a new car with new battery, after the change you find out you have a 4-year-old battery....

Good point.  And it might be a damaged 4-year-old battery.

(As, incidentally, might be the case for an EV rental car ...)

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

How y'all don't understand that is mind boggling.

Totally understood.  You've done some creative cost accounting to favor your EV.

KhunLA - In some posts here you've reported the money you've saved on fuel by driving your EV.  If I understand correctly, you state most of your vehicle charges are from your home solar charger and that you count these as "free" of cost as you are charging with "excess" solar power.  I.e. You already had your home solar power system before you began charging your vehicles with it.

This seems to me disingenuous accounting.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to apportion your cost of charging your EV at home as a percentage of the Cost of Ownership (initial outlay, maintenance, depreciation, repairs, etc.) for your home solar energy system.

For example, if charging your EV accounts for 30% of your systems annual energy output, then your annual EV energy cost would be 30% of your systems annual Cost of Ownership.  It is not really "free energy" as you claim.

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Why so many are on my ignore list.

Who's got the biggest ... ignore list.

Put Chomsky and Kissinger in a room for a bore-off.  Well, Kissinger would win now.  Chomsky a close 2nd.