Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?

"Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed
analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-
respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that
plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It
will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe,
which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil..."

"...It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due
to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher
Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study
will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in
pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last
week, the report has still not been released..."

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Gandhi said it's better to resist violently than to use nonviolence to
hide your passivity.

Doug wrote:
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>
The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so what is 
the point in getting on their backs?

On 4 Jul, 06:05, Doug  wrote:
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>
> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
> obtained by the Guardian.
>
> The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed
> analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-
> respected economist at global financial body.
>
> The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that
> plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It
> will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe,
> which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of
> greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil..."
>
> "...It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due
> to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher
> Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study
> will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in
> pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last
> week, the report has still not been released..."
>
> More:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewablee...
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> Gandhi said it's better to resist violently than to use nonviolence to
> hide your passivity.

Hooray, the real Doug Bollen is back!

Doug wrote:
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>
> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
> obtained by the Guardian.
>
> The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed
> analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-
> respected economist at global financial body.
>
> The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that
> plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It
> will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe,
> which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of
> greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil..."
>
> "...It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due
> to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher
> Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study
> will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in
> pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last
> week, the report has still not been released..."
>
> More:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

No, the oil suppliers have caused it Doug by keeping the price of fuel so 
high.  That leads people like me to run my diesel car on SVO, which is 
significantly cheaper.

Mike P

Doug  wrote:

> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
> obtained by the Guardian.

Can you explain why famers are being told that European grain stores
that should be empty at this time of year are half full? If there's this
huge demand for corn at any price, why is it sitting there in storage
without a buyer?

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
>
>> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
>> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
>> obtained by the Guardian.
>
> Can you explain why famers are being told that European grain stores
> that should be empty at this time of year are half full? If there's
> this huge demand for corn at any price, why is it sitting there in
> storage without a buyer?

It seems to me that anything you can use as a fuel is rocketing in price. 
Mainly because of cretins like Doug and those that believe/agree with what 
he says, along with the politicians desperate for the "green" vote, when in 
fact there is not really that much real evidence of any of their theories.

The motorist is to blame, obviously... ;-)

Mike P

On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> > something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>
> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so what is
> the point in getting on their backs?

Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use it?
If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
greenwash?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Motorists contribute to global starvation, environmental destruction
and drink driving by using ethanol.

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to
>>> do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
>>> biofuels?
>>
>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>
> Correct me if I am wrong,

As you so frequently are.

> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use it?

Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.

> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
> greenwash?

I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case about 
it. Answer the question please.

On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to
> >>> do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
> >>> biofuels?
>
> >> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
> >> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong,
>
> As you so frequently are.
>
> > I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
> > added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use it?
>
> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>
> > If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
> > greenwash?
>
> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case about
> it. Answer the question please.

Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.

If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
public protest, but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
anything, unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Motorists contribute to global starvation, environmental destruction
and drink driving by using ethanol.

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
>>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
>>>>> biofuels?
>>
>>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>
>> As you so frequently are.
>>
>>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
>>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
>>> it?
>>
>> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>>
>>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
>>> greenwash?
>>
>> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
>> about it. Answer the question please.
>
> Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
> questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.

In which case, don't ask any then you won't be asked any in return.

> If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
> public protest, but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
> anything, unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
> authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
> people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.

So rather than ranting to people here and being rude to them, why aren't you 
writing erudite articles and submitting them to the media in an effort to 
sway public opinion?

In message 
, Doug 
 writes
>If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
>public protest, but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
>anything, unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
>authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
>people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.

What's the problem with expensive food? Pricing riff-raff like you out 
of existence can only be a good thing. Let the price of your imported 
lentil slop keep rising until it reaches a realistic level, I say.


-- 
Ed Banger

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
>>> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so what is
>> the point in getting on their backs?
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use it?
> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
> greenwash?

Why should anyone? What good would it do?

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 4 Jul, 05:05, Doug  wrote:
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
>
> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
> obtained by the Guardian.
>
> The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed
> analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-
> respected economist at global financial body.
>
> The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that
> plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It
> will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe,
> which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of
> greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil..."
>
> "...It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due
> to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher
> Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study
> will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in
> pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last
> week, the report has still not been released..."
>
> More:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewablee...
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> Gandhi said it's better to resist violently than to use nonviolence to
> hide your passivity.

So the Guardian have obtained an "unpublished" report to back up a
story which they've published previously, where they've tried to guess
the content of a report yet to be written, no hard facts then....

In article <def9e5f4-45f3-46bc-8c8b-
c63d518187dd@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?
> 
> "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than
> previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
> obtained by the Guardian.
> 
Yet everyone else reckons 4%...


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <f0f4ade8-46e8-4166-a41e-08b2af912143@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> I said motorists are too gutless to do
> anything, unlike lorry drivers,

Aren't lorry drivers motorists?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
>>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
>>>>> biofuels?
>>
>>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>
>> As you so frequently are.
>>
>>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
>>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
>>> it?
>>
>> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>>
>>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
>>> greenwash?
>>
>> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
>> about it. Answer the question please.
>
> Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
> questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.

That's clearly because you are too stupid and misled to do so.


> If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
> public protest

Er Hello Doug. Did a million people marching in London against the illegal 
war have any effect whatsoever? No.. so what makes you think that this would 
be any different? The fact that it's the oil companies, not the government 
seems to have escaped you somewhat.

> but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
> anything,

Or maybe we have better things to do, like not pissing in the wind..

> unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
> authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
> people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.

Proof?

Mike P

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
>>>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use
>>>>>> harmful biofuels?
>>>
>>>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>>>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>>>
>>>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>>
>>> As you so frequently are.
>>>
>>>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
>>>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>>>
>>>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
>>>> greenwash?
>>>
>>> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
>>> about it. Answer the question please.
>>
>> Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
>> questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.
>
> In which case, don't ask any then you won't be asked any in return.
>
>> If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
>> public protest, but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
>> anything, unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
>> authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
>> people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.
>
> So rather than ranting to people here and being rude to them, why
> aren't you writing erudite articles and submitting them to the media
> in an effort to sway public opinion?

Because that is something that Doug is clearly not capable of.

Mike P

In message 
, Doug 
 writes
>Motorists contribute to global starvation, environmental destruction
>and drink driving by using ethanol.
Whilst accepting that ethanol may be added to fuel to make it go 
further, when was the last time you saw anyone drink fuel to back up you 
ridiculous statement?
-- 
Clive

On 4 Jul, 06:05, Doug  wrote:
> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest

When are you going to git off you decrepit arse and get you and
protest about your beliefs?

> motorists going to do
> something about the government compelling you to use harmful biofuels?

Yet you support the use of fuels by insisting on hypermobile food.

> The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed
> analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-
> respected economist at global financial body.

So once again this is a non-story. Without the publishing the actual
report, it is meaningless. This story is just an interpretation of
that report, with any spin added on to it that the guardian wants. We
all know how accurate the media are when they get their hands on a
good story.

Still it does not help that countries like Zimbabwe now grow virtually
no food, when 20 years ago they exported a huge amount. But then
Dzhugashvili, you support the current regime in that country that is
causing the starvation of millions.

On 5 Jul, 12:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
> >>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
> >>>>> biofuels?
>
> >>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
> >>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>
> >>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>
> >> As you so frequently are.
>
> >>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
> >>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
> >>> it?
>
> >> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>
> >>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
> >>> greenwash?
>
> >> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
> >> about it. Answer the question please.
>
> > Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
> > questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.
>
> That's clearly because you are too stupid and misled to do so.
>
Why is it stupid then to refuse to answer stupid questions? The
reverse is true, obviously.
>
> > If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
> > public protest
>
> Er Hello Doug. Did a million people marching in London against the illegal
> war have any effect whatsoever? No.. so what makes you think that this would
> be any different? The fact that it's the oil companies, not the government
> seems to have escaped you somewhat.
>
That is because there is nothing the People can do to affect foreign
policy in our sham democracy but local issues are different.
>
> > but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
> > anything,
>
> Or maybe we have better things to do, like not pissing in the wind..
>
So were the suffragettes and pole tax protesters pissing in the wind?
>
> > unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
> > authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
> > people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.
>
> Proof?
>
Stop asking stupid questions.

It is well known that motoring taxes do not compensate for all the
costs, inconvenience and harm caused, such as pollution, congestion,
perpetual road building and deaths and injuries on our roads.

The pitifully small amount of VED doesn't even begin to cover the 24/7
street garaging of millions of cars on our public roads. For example,
say street parking in some places is charged at 1 pound per hour, that
would be 24 quid per day and 8760 quid per year and yet many motorists
get the same thing outside their homes for less than 200 quid per
year, even assuming it is paid for by VED.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

In message 
, Doug 
 writes
>On 5 Jul, 12:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> >>>> Doug wrote:
>> >>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
>> >>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
>> >>>>> biofuels?
>>
>> >>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>> >>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>>
>> >>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>
>> >> As you so frequently are.
>>
>> >>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
>> >>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
>> >>> it?
>>
>> >> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>>
>> >>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
>> >>> greenwash?
>>
>> >> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
>> >> about it. Answer the question please.
>>
>> > Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
>> > questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.
>>
>> That's clearly because you are too stupid and misled to do so.
>>
>Why is it stupid then to refuse to answer stupid questions? The
>reverse is true, obviously.
>>
>> > If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
>> > public protest
>>
>> Er Hello Doug. Did a million people marching in London against the illegal
>> war have any effect whatsoever? No.. so what makes you think that this would
>> be any different? The fact that it's the oil companies, not the government
>> seems to have escaped you somewhat.
>>
>That is because there is nothing the People can do to affect foreign
>policy in our sham democracy but local issues are different.
>>
>> > but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
>> > anything,
>>
>> Or maybe we have better things to do, like not pissing in the wind..
>>
>So were the suffragettes and pole tax protesters pissing in the wind?
>>
>> > unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
>> > authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
>> > people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.
>>
>> Proof?
>>
>Stop asking stupid questions.
>
>It is well known that motoring taxes do not compensate for all the
>costs, inconvenience and harm caused, such as pollution,

What pollution? By all measures, the air is cleaner than it was 10 years 
ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 300 years ago. The only 
pollutant around here is you talking shit , as usual.

> congestion,

Caused by not enough roads, leading to your next point...

>perpetual road building

"Perpetual road building"? If only. Britain has among the lowest number 
of motorway miles per capita in Europe, the very cause of your whine 
above.

>and deaths and injuries on our roads.

We still have some of the safest roads in the world, despite the best 
efforts of the "speed kills" brigade to undermine that tremendous 
record. Get a grip.

>The pitifully small amount of VED

Using stupidly extreme rhetoric and DuhgMaths doesn't make it any truer, 
you know. As usual, strip away the ranting and you have absolutely no 
case.


-- 
Ed Banger

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 12:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
>>>>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
>>>>>>> biofuels?
>>>>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
>>>>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>>> As you so frequently are.
>>>>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
>>>>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
>>>>> it?
>>>> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>>>>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
>>>>> greenwash?
>>>> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
>>>> about it. Answer the question please.
>>> Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
>>> questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.
>> That's clearly because you are too stupid and misled to do so.
>>
> Why is it stupid then to refuse to answer stupid questions? The
> reverse is true, obviously.
>>> If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
>>> public protest
>> Er Hello Doug. Did a million people marching in London against the illegal
>> war have any effect whatsoever? No.. so what makes you think that this would
>> be any different? The fact that it's the oil companies, not the government
>> seems to have escaped you somewhat.
>>
> That is because there is nothing the People can do to affect foreign
> policy in our sham democracy but local issues are different.

This is not a local issue - the original mandate to include fuel of 
biological origin in petrol comes from the EU.



-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 6 Jul, 11:42, Ed Banger  wrote:
> In message
> , Doug
>  writes
>
>
>
> >On 5 Jul, 12:51, "Mike P"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > On 5 Jul, 08:18, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> >> Doug wrote:
> >> >>> On 4 Jul, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >> >>>>> Told you so!  When are you gutless, anti-protest motorists going
> >> >>>>> to do something about the government compelling you to use harmful
> >> >>>>> biofuels?
>
> >> >>>> The "government" doesn't force any company to produce bio-fuels so
> >> >>>> what is the point in getting on their backs?
>
> >> >>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>
> >> >> As you so frequently are.
>
> >> >>> I am not a motorist, but isn't ethanol now
> >> >>> added to petrol and any motorist buying petrol is compelled to use
> >> >>> it?
>
> >> >> Some for of bio-fuel is added to most fuel AIUI.
>
> >> >>> If so, why aren't motorists here protesting about this compulsory
> >> >>> greenwash?
>
> >> >> I asked what would be the point of getting on the government's case
> >> >> about it. Answer the question please.
>
> >> > Strange as it may seem to you I am not here to answer your stupid
> >> > questions which, in most cases, have very obvious answers.
>
> >> That's clearly because you are too stupid and misled to do so.
>
> >Why is it stupid then to refuse to answer stupid questions? The
> >reverse is true, obviously.
>
> >> > If you can't change anything by voting you might be able to by mass
> >> > public protest
>
> >> Er Hello Doug. Did a million people marching in London against the illegal
> >> war have any effect whatsoever? No.. so what makes you think that this would
> >> be any different? The fact that it's the oil companies, not the government
> >> seems to have escaped you somewhat.
>
> >That is because there is nothing the People can do to affect foreign
> >policy in our sham democracy but local issues are different.
>
> >> > but as I said motorists are too gutless to do
> >> > anything,
>
> >> Or maybe we have better things to do, like not pissing in the wind..
>
> >So were the suffragettes and pole tax protesters pissing in the wind?
>
> >> > unlike lorry drivers, and are prepared to knuckle under to
> >> > authority and merely whinge endlessly, while they continue to harm
> >> > people and the planet and are subsidised to do so.
>
> >> Proof?
>
> >Stop asking stupid questions.
>
> >It is well known that motoring taxes do not compensate for all the
> >costs, inconvenience and harm caused, such as pollution,
>
> What pollution? By all measures, the air is cleaner than it was 10 years
> ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 300 years ago. The only
> pollutant around here is you talking shit , as usual.
>
Wrong again, as usual. Some forms of pollution have been replaced by
others, such as carcinogenic benzene in petrol, and a lower population
in the past meant less overall pollution.
>
> > congestion,
>
> Caused by not enough roads, leading to your next point...
>
Caused by more and more traffic, which is encouraged by a strictly
temporary fall in congestion caused by more roads.
>
> >perpetual road building
>
> "Perpetual road building"? If only. Britain has among the lowest number
> of motorway miles per capita in Europe, the very cause of your whine
> above.
>
Nope. Britain is presently about average for its motorway density and
there is no end to road building and/or widening.
>
> >and deaths and injuries on our roads.
>
> We still have some of the safest roads in the world, despite the best
> efforts of the "speed kills" brigade to undermine that tremendous
> record. Get a grip.
>
Ther are still far too many deaths and injuries on our roads, which
you choose to dismiss so lightly despite the suffering caused.
>
> >The pitifully small amount of VED
>
> Using stupidly extreme rhetoric and DuhgMaths doesn't make it any truer,
> you know. As usual, strip away the ranting and you have absolutely no
> case.
>
Low VED levels are a numerical fact.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  wrote:

> Nope. Britain is presently about average for its motorway density

Liar!!

> and there is no end to road building and/or widening.

There's no end to your whining and stupidity either.

In message 
, 
Doug  writes
>On 6 Jul, 11:42, Ed Banger  wrote:
>> In message
>> , Doug
>>  writes
>> >It is well known that motoring taxes do not compensate for all the
>> >costs, inconvenience and harm caused, such as pollution,
>>
>> What pollution? By all measures, the air is cleaner than it was 10 years
>> ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 300 years ago. The only
>> pollutant around here is you talking shit , as usual.
>>
>Wrong again, as usual.

This is Duhgspeak for "you got me bang to rights there, guv". See also 
"Liar!", "Semanticist!" and "Nitpicker!"

>Some forms of pollution have been replaced by
>others, such as carcinogenic benzene in petrol,

Let's see the numbers.

>and a lower population
>in the past meant less overall pollution.
>>
>> > congestion,
>>
>> Caused by not enough roads, leading to your next point...
>>
>Caused by more and more traffic,

Obviously there are not enough roads to cope with demand.

> which is encouraged by a strictly
>temporary fall in congestion caused by more roads.
>>
>> >perpetual road building
>>
>> "Perpetual road building"? If only. Britain has among the lowest number
>> of motorway miles per capita in Europe, the very cause of your whine
>> above.
>>
>Nope. Britain is presently about average for its motorway density and
>there is no end to road building and/or widening.

Your innumeracy on this point has already been pointed out to you. 
Another "two ozones" moment.

>> We still have some of the safest roads in the world, despite the best
>> efforts of the "speed kills" brigade to undermine that tremendous
>> record. Get a grip.
>>
>Ther are still far too many deaths and injuries on our roads,

Compared to?

>which
>you choose to dismiss so lightly despite the suffering caused.
>>
>> >The pitifully small amount of VED
>>
>> Using stupidly extreme rhetoric and DuhgMaths doesn't make it any truer,
>> you know. As usual, strip away the ranting and you have absolutely no
>> case.
>>
>Low VED levels are a numerical fact.

PMSL. As several threads in here show, you wouldn't know a numerical 
fact if it slapped you in the face.


-- 
Ed Banger

In article <e53a20d8-4c07-40dd-99a1-
77fba3eea7fc@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Wrong again, as usual. Some forms of pollution have been replaced by
> others, such as carcinogenic benzene in petrol, and a lower population
> in the past meant less overall pollution.

So volcanic activity doesn't produce pollution? There was a lot more 
volcanic activity in the past than there is now and one volcano 
eruption of a few weeks on a Mount Etna scale produces more polution 
than all of mankind for a year.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In message , Ed Banger 
 writes
>In message 
>, 
>Doug  writes
>>On 6 Jul, 11:42, Ed Banger  wrote:
>>> In message
>>> , Doug
>>>  writes
>>> >It is well known that motoring taxes do not compensate for all the
>>> >costs, inconvenience and harm caused, such as pollution,
>>> What pollution? By all measures, the air is cleaner than it was 10 years
>>> ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 300 years ago. The only
>>> pollutant around here is you talking shit , as usual.
An airline pilot was talking about dirt in the atmosphere and he 
recounted when a volcano had erupted causing ash around the world 
causing headaches for pilots with the following summer as the clearest 
he'd ever seen and that nature must be taking very good care of itself 
without interference by man.
>>Wrong again, as usual.
>This is Duhgspeak for "you got me bang to rights there, guv". See also 
>"Liar!", "Semanticist!" and "Nitpicker!"
>>Some forms of pollution have been replaced by
>>others, such as carcinogenic benzene in petrol,
Are there two types of benzene, one carcinogenic and the other harmless 
or even good?
>Let's see the numbers.
>>and a lower population
>>in the past meant less overall pollution.
>>> > congestion,
>>> Caused by not enough roads, leading to your next point...
>>Caused by more and more traffic,
And not enough roads, even though the government is making a killing out 
of the poor unsubsidised motorist.
>Obviously there are not enough roads to cope with demand.
>> which is encouraged by a strictly
>>temporary fall in congestion caused by more roads.
>>> >perpetual road building
Shouldn't that read "perpetual road maintenance" because the job wasn't 
done properly first time, or a failure to understand the needs for flows 
of traffic?
>>> "Perpetual road building"? If only. Britain has among the lowest number
>>> of motorway miles per capita in Europe, the very cause of your whine
>>> above.
>>Nope. Britain is presently about average for its motorway density and
>>there is no end to road building and/or widening.
Liar.
>Your innumeracy on this point has already been pointed out to you. 
>Another "two ozones" moment.
>>> We still have some of the safest roads in the world, despite the best
>>> efforts of the "speed kills" brigade to undermine that tremendous
>>> record. Get a grip.
>>Ther are still far too many deaths and injuries on our roads,
Make J-walking an offence then, along with riding bikes on pavements.
>Compared to?
>>which
>>you choose to dismiss so lightly despite the suffering caused.
>>> >The pitifully small amount of VED
Are you charged for the area that your heating system and cooker take 
up?   If not why not?
>>> Using stupidly extreme rhetoric and DuhgMaths doesn't make it any truer,
>>> you know. As usual, strip away the ranting and you have absolutely no
>>> case.
>>Low VED levels are a numerical fact.
>PMSL. As several threads in here show, you wouldn't know a numerical 
>fact if it slapped you in the face.

-- 
Clive