Now now ... I feel we must at least bring another few factors into this ... I also need a vehicle that I can fit in! and with all the good will in the world a small car will not tow the large 2 ton trailers we use.
As far as the green thiong is concerned I have no hair hence have spent at least 30 years of my life not using hairspray ... so there is *some* balance there also.
It's 2.17am and I really fancy a dougnut! ... or at least some flapjack ... arr, some in the fridge ..... nosh! nosh!
mattley wrote:The point you're missing is that Markie hasn't bought a new car, he's extending the life of a car that already exists therefore extending it's life as an existing car.
So, joining in with your humourless extension of this pointless debate, what you're saying is that Mark buying a 4 litre tank rather than a similarly priced and aged, 'greener' car is environmentally equivalent. Because he's extending the life of the tank. Logic (and humour) fail by Mattley.
Simon
christ lets all jump on the tree hugging bandwagon.
It all comes down to a little thing called personal choice. most people who have the slightest interest in cars will by what they like the look of not what everyone else reckon they should have.
i've never owned a "green" car yet. Why? because they're fucking dogshit ugly
There's nowt wrong wi'owt what mitherin' clutterbucks don't barley grummit!
cheeseman wrote:
christ lets all jump on the tree hugging bandwagon.
There's no such thing as a green car. They are all evil
No! Mass murderers and terrorists are evil.
Indeed. Guns don't kill people and so forth. By that token, those who choose to drive unjustifyable polluting vehicles are evil.
cheeseman wrote:A car is a necessity for a great many people
A car is a necessity for far, far, fewer people than own and drive them. Large urban tanks even more so.
My original reaction to this car ("and an apology on the back") was not because it's a resource absorbing sop to vanity but because they're a danger to cyclists and motorcyclists.
My original reaction to this car ("and an apology on the back") was not because it's a resource absorbing sop to vanity but because they're a danger to cyclists and motorcyclists.[/quote]
cyclists and motorcyclists are a danger to cyclists and motorcyclists
There's nowt wrong wi'owt what mitherin' clutterbucks don't barley grummit!
Is it time to introduce pictures of aeroplanes yet?
Why does every thread have to turn into a moral or political rant after a page? Since when did this become the Daily Mail forum? Sometimes it's just not needed.
I wonder, of the people here waffling about 'green' issues, how many of them have instances of the following in their lives/homes?
PVCu double glazing
PVCu front door
Man-made carpets
Cement rendering
Makeup
Jewellery
Playing computer games
Buying out-of-season veg/fruit from a shop
Because to own or use any of the above, and then whinge about a person's choice of car, makes you a hypocrite. Greenies couldn't give a shit about the planet. They simply don't care about anything but their own version of a sustainable life. As a greenie why they're wearing clothes that are cut and died, instead of animal furs - they're equally as vain as anyone else. The difference is that most people don't attempt to disguise it.
Frankly I think anthropogenic climate change theory is likely a load of old toss. I'm more concerned with people littering fields, or chucking nasty chemicals into rivers and ponds, than I am about a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a frankly very insignificant atmospheric gas.
And after this morning we now have some rough fuel takes ... bimbberlig aronf town is getting between 20-25 ... whilst on the motorway we are getting 30-35 ... MPG ... Our Mondeo doesent do much more than that.
Somthing about the engine I noticed is that if you drive it relaxed .. it'll sit at 70mph and only hitting about 2000 revs ... but boot it and away it goes! as does all the calculations.
