Now Wheels used to be called No Wheels but finally conceded and bought a communal Almera to share with her friends. They must LOVE her
Think I may have the upper hand on this one I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.
23rd Mar 2007 10:29 pm
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
well that'd explain the ranting then - bet the painters are in
and as for confusing fact with fiction, being unable to hold a reasoned argument, changing the subject when losing.... well.... it's all to do with hormones isn't it maybe you should suggest HRT as a panacea to the worlds woes
I really seem to have got under her skin on this one; usually she's just misinformed but I seem to have really spiked her, the way she's ducking, diving and twisting.
Loving it. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.
23rd Mar 2007 10:52 pm
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
managed a similar response on the greenpi$$ site - something to do with eating rescued horses if I remember rightly
It's all the more amusing as I used to be a moderator over there and had to be "nice" to NW.I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.
23rd Mar 2007 10:59 pm
CY
Member Since: 16 Aug 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 4502
NoDo$h,
I couldnt help but enter a humungous essay/rant after reading some of the people on that site's responses. For those of you who don't want to go onto that site, here's what I said:
"We have a Land Rover Discovery 3, it has a 2.7 litre diesel engine and it is the best car we have owned, ever.
Why did we buy it?
Well, we're a family, and so we need a family car. What must it do? Well, it's got to be big, being over 6ft. with a very tall family of 4, the car must be able to accomodate for us on long journeys. Really, that rules out the typical-sized family cars, like the Mondeo etc.
Secondly, having children with friends, having family friends, and having the need to carry many business-men in the car at once means that 7 seats are essential.
Thirdly, the car is used as a means of executive transport, and instead of having a seperate exec. like a Merc. or BMW, we looked for a car that would incorporate comfortable ride quality into the family car. Regular long-distance jaunts in an uncomfortable car is not acceptable.
Fourthly, we need a car that is able to adapt to a variety of different machines. For example, we need something with a van-sized loadbay for carrying beds, dishwashers, and other large pieces of furniture and appliances. Then, through the flick of a few levers, the car needs to be able to carry my whole family, have space for the dog and all her equipment, and still have sufficient space in the boot for out entire familys luggage for a 3 week holiday down south.
It also has to be safe - given the number of idiots on the road nowadays. The safety of my family is my number one priority, and any environmental who can't see this as important - well, don't get me started.
So, that sums up why we need it as a family car. But we also need a car that is able to take us ANYWHERE irrespective of conditions. When the roads are layered in ice, there's 6 inches of snow and its thundering with rain - there are still places I HAVE to be. When we are in the countryside where conditions are regularly poor, we need a car that will shrug it off.
When, in November 2004, the Discovery 3 was put on sale by Land Rover, for the first time we were confronted with a car which did ALL of these above qualities without lifting a finger. ONE car that does everything we could possibly need in our demanding lives, ONE car that does EXACTLY what it says on the tin, and on top of that it returns more than 30mpg and, 2 and a half years on, we are still finding out more and more about the car which makes it even more fantastic. We have owned superminis, hatchbacks, family saloons, family estates, people carriers, mini-MPVs, off roaders, but NOTHING has been as BRILLIANT as the Discovery. I wouldn't have anything else.
I have paid to have all the CO2 emmited by the Discovery off-set through a variety of means, organised by climate experts Climatecare. Land Rover now does this for ALL of its cars. Considering all that it does, the car is superbly economical, and shows outstanding value for money.
Some people don't understand this, and thats their loss, not mine. Of course Gordon Brown has to be seen as being eco-friendly, and so yes we will have to pay a wee bit more to tax it. But these days, that's the price you have to pay for owning something of such outstanding brilliance.
Can't accept that? Well, there you go. Just keep your nose out of my business.
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: League City, Tx
Posts: 54
disco4x4au wrote:
I agree that the evidence is not conclusive. That's why I said it _seems_ to indicate a human contribution to warming. But then isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution? Look at what's at stake ..........
But is it "prudent to err on the side of caution" when the solutions proposed to 'reduce' CO2 will destroy, yes destroy, the economies of western civilization if fully enacted by curtailing economic activity? (you folks in the UK are already beginning to see it, I'm afraid) Particularly given the admission of respected anthropogenic global warming believers that reducing CO2 from human activity will do little or nothing to reduce total CO2 in the atmosphere?
The goal of most greens, whether they will admit it or not, is to carry on their lifestyle - often extravagant, such as that of a certain oscar-winning environmentalist politician cum 'prophet' - and insist that everyone else conserve or in other ways alter their behaviour to meet the wishes, wet dreams, and wild fantasies of a 'world without human depredations' et al.
In short, they want to limit our freedom in order to achieve their utopian dreams, with themselves in charge. "Global warming" is but the latest means by which to accomplish it. Back in the 70's it was famine, plague, and global cooling. In the 80's it was nuclear winter.
It's rubbish.
No computer model exists that can predict the effects of water vapour - which by the way is the single most common greenhouse gas - which has the most profound effect on our weather after the Sun itself.
So folks, enjoy your D3s without guilt. Vote for MPs and Congresscritters who understand this is rubbish and send the greens back to the spider holes they came from.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
not again... pleeease
