UK car tax

[Scrogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by dakini (original)

I'm trying to find out if there's *any* substance to your posts ...

I can think of one substance almost immediately

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by dakini (original)

what i've been asking is why you keep saying scientists say the earth is flat ... i'm not saying science is right or wrong.

i just find a lot of your 1000 posts in the last 2 weeks to be, well, immature and un-thought-through but acting like you know everything. so i'm calling you on it for once. you keep giving this example of scientists saying the earth is flat, and i'm asking you who. you just keep repeating it without any proof. i've already told you the idea was made up in the early 19th century by an American storyteller.

I'm trying to find out if there's *any* substance to your posts ...

Here you go then. Admittedly not from the best source but here goes;
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"William Carpenter (1830-1896) published "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe".[69] For example, he argues that "there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's 'convexity'"; and that an aeronaut at the highest possible altitude will see what appears to be a concave surface "this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer".

English scientist Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1885), writing under the pseudonym "Parallax," published results of many experiments which tested the curvatures of water over lakes. He also produced studies which purported to show the effects of ships disappearing below the horizon can be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye.[70]"

[jimmyt]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Would you want something like an Aston Martin, Ferrari etc. I was just using them as an example of cars which are quite polluting.
Yes Dell power supplies are made in China, but the majority isn't.

Some taxes are ring fenced, I'll try and find out which, but some are.

I wouldn't mind a Aston or Ferrari but I wouldn't object to the higher road tax as I would see it as a luxury

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

The Cooper D isn't in the lowest band - there is a band which as a £0 road tax.

Correct, but the £35 or what ever it is for band B is less than I'm paying for my classic mini with a 1275cc engine, but an engine that was almost put in to production before the wheel because its pollutes less Co2. Should I be moaning at this because my cars smaller. My parents have a 1970s MGB with a 1.8l with free road tax, should I be moaning that this is free but mine isn't?

Has the cheaper tax for Cooper D model encouraged people to chose this over the petrol Cooper or One? I would guess so

[dakini]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Here you go then. Admittedly not from the best source but here goes;
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"William Carpenter (1830-1896) published "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe".[69] For example, he argues that "there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's 'convexity'"; and that an aeronaut at the highest possible altitude will see what appears to be a concave surface "this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer".

English scientist Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1885), writing under the pseudonym "Parallax," published results of many experiments which tested the curvatures of water over lakes. He also produced studies which purported to show the effects of ships disappearing below the horizon can be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye.[70]"

you're right Wikipedia's not a reputable source, since you and i can edit it.

by the way, carpenter's not a scientist. he also wrote religious treatises.

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by dakini (original)

what i've been asking is why you keep saying scientists say the earth is flat ... i'm not saying science is right or wrong.

i just find a lot of your 1000 posts in the last 2 weeks to be, well, immature and un-thought-through but acting like you know everything. so i'm calling you on it for once. you keep giving this example of scientists saying the earth is flat, and i'm asking you who. you just keep repeating it without any proof. i've already told you the idea was made up in the early 19th century by an American storyteller.

I'm trying to find out if there's *any* substance to your posts ...

Ok, scientists use a posterior i arguments - based on the most likely outcome.

How about Fred Hoyle's theory - he gave the big bang theory its name when he was mocking it (I think it was him, or may have been Hubble) but anyway, the previous theory was older than the big bang one so there is time yet! Science tries to prove itself wrong. Believe what you like, but at first science disagreed with global warming etc.

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by dakini (original)

you're right Wikipedia's not a reputable source, since you and i can edit it.

by the way, carpenter's not a scientist. he also wrote religious treatises.

I know plenty of scientists who are religious. Just because you are religious doesn't mean you can't be a scientist!

[jimmyt]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Well we can - we have presented them with the information and how to avoid making the mistakes we have made. Its like parents who smoke - the vast majority tell their children not to start...

So we should tell them to cut down on their co2 output, whilst we go on spluttering around pumping smoke out of our pipes.
Or are you saying the parents should set a good example?

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmyt (original)

So we should tell them to cut down on their co2 output, whilst we go on spluttering around pumping smoke out of our pipes.
Or are you saying the parents should set a good example?

Yes, parents should set a good example - see the adverts on the TV. I was just using smoking as an example.

[jimmyt]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Yes, parents should set a good example - see the adverts on the TV. I was just using smoking as an example.

So we should try and cut down on our co2 emissions?

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmyt (original)

So we should try and cut down on our co2 emissions?

Yes, I never said we shouldn't, I was merely saying that we won't really have an effect due to the larger countries. I'm happy to admit that any step is a good one, but I don't think that Mr Average should be penalised for decisions he/she made years ago. I would definitely do my bit should the rest of the world do something - also Brown needs to practice what he preaches.

[Scrogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

I don't think that Mr Average should be penalised for decisions he/she made years ago.

What, like buying a Golf or a Mondeo?

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

also Brown needs to practice what he preaches.

And the evidence you have that he doesn't is...?

[dakini]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Ok, scientists use a posterior i arguments - based on the most likely outcome.

How about Fred Hoyle's theory - he gave the big bang theory its name when he was mocking it (I think it was him, or may have been Hubble) but anyway, the previous theory was older than the big bang one so there is time yet! Science tries to prove itself wrong. Believe what you like, but at first science disagreed with global warming etc.

are you just going to keep saying stuff about scientists in the hopes you finally hit on something correct

(and can you stay on one topic -- we were talking flat earth. not global warming) ....

i bet you're one of those people on the GCSE's (or will be when you take them) that gets a few points for just writing random expletives.

anyway, in referreed journals of science, the articles all said global warming was a reality. in popular armchair-scientist journals, the reaction was much more split. but then again, those aren't referred by peers in the field.

[M.O.S]

Quote: Originally Posted by Scrogg (original)

What, like buying a Golf or a Mondeo?

Yes - some Mondeos are in the top tax band, or at least soon to be paying a fortune. Same goes for Renault Espaces etc.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scrogg (original)

And the evidence you have that he doesn't is...?

He drives round in a Jaguar Super V8 LWB.

[dakini]

Quote: Originally Posted by Scrogg (original)

What, like buying a Golf or a Mondeo?


And the evidence you have that he doesn't is...?

dude, i've been asking the kid for evidence for a while. i think we might want to pull up some chairs while we wait ... the first round's on me.

[vickietots]

Quote: Originally Posted by M.O.S (original)

Yes, I never said we shouldn't, I was merely saying that we won't really have an effect due to the larger countries. I'm happy to admit that any step is a good one, but I don't think that Mr Average should be penalised for decisions he/she made years ago. I would definitely do my bit should the rest of the world do something - also Brown needs to practice what he preaches.

Well you are contradicting yourself by saying that we should lead by example but you yourself said that you won't change unless others do?? You are being so short sighted!! Yes there are issues with taxes and the way the government are trying to make people reduce their carbon footprint, I think that there are better ways and things will change over the next few years. But we all need to do our bit! A ripple can turn into a wave!