Gludy
Well-Known Member
Re: 25 knots at a third the fuel
Henry
I suppose you would class me as a leading school boy bully ... but then that is your way of avoiding the question is it not?
Let me make this clear, I find your stance both ignorant and arrogant - so there that is where I am coming from and I am happy to explain why.
1. You Hide Behind Environment Issues
Having withdrawn the unthinking statements about red being subsidised - an error pointed out by others to you, you then hide behind your support of ending derogation by hiding behind environmental issues. But this was exposed in your own words early on in this thread by you stating clearly that you are supporting it for the benefit of your company. Now in your last post you clad yourself in the environmental flag again! have you forgotten that you have already admitted this:-
“I am campaigning against it to make buyers consider catamarans more favourably, which will be of benefit to catamaran builders, namely, Ecocats”
2. Arrogance
“I was perfectly happy to have a bit of abuse initially because it takes people time to get used to a new idea, however valid, especially when they know that their position does not really make sense”
You really do take the cake – may I remind you that you were the one who initially had to actually alter you web site because a statement you made that was not correct was pointed out by a member of this forum. There has been no great dispute about the fuel economy of cats on this thread and I have even stated that I think they will increasingly find more favour in the future – the dispute has been about your support of ending the derogation and you have actually hardly defended that position at all other than to make stupid and untrue statements like claiming big mono hulls are "incredibly cheap to run".
Being shouted Down
“Whatever attempts I make to debate my position are shouted down with more abusive postings.”
Well I was simply asking very precise questions that you simply did not answer. When you answered those questions I had follow up questions ….. I was going to prove to you how illogical your position was and you simply ignored my questions then prattled on about the rights of free speech which nobody was disputing.
Look at the thread, you were not shouted down at all – you evaded the questions and frankly when you did your bye bye post I simply lost all respect for you. Even now you give a huge smoke screen but avoid answering questions.
Advertsing Standards
“Well, go for it and I will whip up a coalition of campaign groups to debate my comments that the polluter boat industry and their fellow-travellers will regret. As I say, let's have a debate in public. Let's let some sunshine in.”
There you are again with the arrogance to threaten the whole boat industry of which you are a part. You have made advertising claims. The law states that you should be able to prove those claims as truthful – what do you have to fear that warrants a response to threaten the whole boat industry? You really do take the cake yet again.
Face to face
“You abuse me from behind your keyboards. I am happy to meet each of you face to face. You can then type up your comments on our meeting on a discussion board to your heart's content - if you feel like it.”
I will meet you face to face and take a video of the interview which I will then publish on DVD – nothing could be fairer than that. The footage could not be edited without both parties approval. How about that?
It would of course be easier to debate the issue of why you are supporting the ending of derogation against the direct interest of your own customers but if that is what it takes a video it will be.
Self Interest
“I am accused of acting out of self-interest because I have invested in green boat building”
Do not forget you have already clearly stated that you are supporting the ending of derogation in order to further the interests of your own company … that seems to be a good starting position for a video for distribution to the boating public does it not? So what is anyone here accusing you of that you have not already admitted in writing on this thread as a fact?
Low Tax on Leisure Diesel
“The current tax rate on leisure diesel needs to be adjusted to a sensible level to bring this about. I believe the current tax level is too low. Yes, I do.”
Why not commercial diesel? What is the difference?
My Question
“I am asked whether I accept that putting up the tax on diesel for leisure boats will raise costs for leisure cat users who use diesel. This is a childish question as it is self-proving.
A favourite trick of show trial prosecutors. The answer is that I do accept that and believe it is fair enough. It will only go to the same level paid by the user of an off-road ATV. What a silly question. Next?”
Well then that means that if your company has any ideas of selling to the lesure market your company is actively engaged in acting against the interests of its own customers …. Yes?
I would argue the answer to that is self evident so I will answer it for you – yes you are!
It also means that where people could enter boating and use cats because of their fuel efficiency they would now be priced out of the market because if you have your way the costs would increase to the level of mon0 – hulls today …answer; Yes …. another self evident answer.
Does your self interest go so deep that you need to grow by acting against the interests of your own customers as well as your industry?
Let me tell you something almost 99& of commercial use is actually a service serving optional leisure purchases in western economies. A boat using red to transport ship loads of DVD’s, play stations or for that matter motor cars is no different than choosing to use fuel to take a cruise down the coast.
What is clear is that you have not even thought the issues you campaign on through and past your own self declared self interest.
Now why not answer the questions posed and discuss the actual issue on why you are supporting the end of derogation …. If you do this in an open honest debate you will lose and that is because you have not even begun to think the subject through. Your own declared self interest blinds you.
Henry
I suppose you would class me as a leading school boy bully ... but then that is your way of avoiding the question is it not?
Let me make this clear, I find your stance both ignorant and arrogant - so there that is where I am coming from and I am happy to explain why.
1. You Hide Behind Environment Issues
Having withdrawn the unthinking statements about red being subsidised - an error pointed out by others to you, you then hide behind your support of ending derogation by hiding behind environmental issues. But this was exposed in your own words early on in this thread by you stating clearly that you are supporting it for the benefit of your company. Now in your last post you clad yourself in the environmental flag again! have you forgotten that you have already admitted this:-
“I am campaigning against it to make buyers consider catamarans more favourably, which will be of benefit to catamaran builders, namely, Ecocats”
2. Arrogance
“I was perfectly happy to have a bit of abuse initially because it takes people time to get used to a new idea, however valid, especially when they know that their position does not really make sense”
You really do take the cake – may I remind you that you were the one who initially had to actually alter you web site because a statement you made that was not correct was pointed out by a member of this forum. There has been no great dispute about the fuel economy of cats on this thread and I have even stated that I think they will increasingly find more favour in the future – the dispute has been about your support of ending the derogation and you have actually hardly defended that position at all other than to make stupid and untrue statements like claiming big mono hulls are "incredibly cheap to run".
Being shouted Down
“Whatever attempts I make to debate my position are shouted down with more abusive postings.”
Well I was simply asking very precise questions that you simply did not answer. When you answered those questions I had follow up questions ….. I was going to prove to you how illogical your position was and you simply ignored my questions then prattled on about the rights of free speech which nobody was disputing.
Look at the thread, you were not shouted down at all – you evaded the questions and frankly when you did your bye bye post I simply lost all respect for you. Even now you give a huge smoke screen but avoid answering questions.
Advertsing Standards
“Well, go for it and I will whip up a coalition of campaign groups to debate my comments that the polluter boat industry and their fellow-travellers will regret. As I say, let's have a debate in public. Let's let some sunshine in.”
There you are again with the arrogance to threaten the whole boat industry of which you are a part. You have made advertising claims. The law states that you should be able to prove those claims as truthful – what do you have to fear that warrants a response to threaten the whole boat industry? You really do take the cake yet again.
Face to face
“You abuse me from behind your keyboards. I am happy to meet each of you face to face. You can then type up your comments on our meeting on a discussion board to your heart's content - if you feel like it.”
I will meet you face to face and take a video of the interview which I will then publish on DVD – nothing could be fairer than that. The footage could not be edited without both parties approval. How about that?
It would of course be easier to debate the issue of why you are supporting the ending of derogation against the direct interest of your own customers but if that is what it takes a video it will be.
Self Interest
“I am accused of acting out of self-interest because I have invested in green boat building”
Do not forget you have already clearly stated that you are supporting the ending of derogation in order to further the interests of your own company … that seems to be a good starting position for a video for distribution to the boating public does it not? So what is anyone here accusing you of that you have not already admitted in writing on this thread as a fact?
Low Tax on Leisure Diesel
“The current tax rate on leisure diesel needs to be adjusted to a sensible level to bring this about. I believe the current tax level is too low. Yes, I do.”
Why not commercial diesel? What is the difference?
My Question
“I am asked whether I accept that putting up the tax on diesel for leisure boats will raise costs for leisure cat users who use diesel. This is a childish question as it is self-proving.
A favourite trick of show trial prosecutors. The answer is that I do accept that and believe it is fair enough. It will only go to the same level paid by the user of an off-road ATV. What a silly question. Next?”
Well then that means that if your company has any ideas of selling to the lesure market your company is actively engaged in acting against the interests of its own customers …. Yes?
I would argue the answer to that is self evident so I will answer it for you – yes you are!
It also means that where people could enter boating and use cats because of their fuel efficiency they would now be priced out of the market because if you have your way the costs would increase to the level of mon0 – hulls today …answer; Yes …. another self evident answer.
Does your self interest go so deep that you need to grow by acting against the interests of your own customers as well as your industry?
Let me tell you something almost 99& of commercial use is actually a service serving optional leisure purchases in western economies. A boat using red to transport ship loads of DVD’s, play stations or for that matter motor cars is no different than choosing to use fuel to take a cruise down the coast.
What is clear is that you have not even thought the issues you campaign on through and past your own self declared self interest.
Now why not answer the questions posed and discuss the actual issue on why you are supporting the end of derogation …. If you do this in an open honest debate you will lose and that is because you have not even begun to think the subject through. Your own declared self interest blinds you.
