Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[Soul Requiem]

First topic message reminder :

The far left is often dependent on where an individual themselves is on the political spectrum, for example Owen Jones may be seen as far left to someone who is centre right but to a centrist will be seen as merely left wing, personally have him down as part of the hard left.

I have him as left wing. Though is hard left not the same as far left because I dont have him as far left. I get tge views based on your own spectrum though. Which is why I hare labour supporters calling Starmer and others right wing.  Left of centre is not right wing.

I would say that hard left is within the standard left wing myself, thinking of someone like Tony Benn being hard left as opposed to Ed Milliband who was soft left, will say however that is possibly closer to far left than it is the centre.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

So you accept the arguments Jas has made about connections between large corporations, money laundering, the EU and politicians.  It is in trying to connect such things that conspiracy theories are born, as I suspect you know.

No, I don't, even assuming he even did say that. How is it you keep doing 2+2=5?

[McLaren]

Navy, keep up. For several years since the EU referendum JAS has been putting forward the argument that the EU and big business are in each others pockets. And that the MEP's facilitate this.

The tone he strikes when talking about this stuff is quite conspiratorial, he goes further than just saying that big business happens to get some decent breaks from political decisions.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy, keep up. For several years since the EU referendum JAS has been putting forward the argument that the EU and big business are in each others pockets. And that the MEP's facilitate this.

The tone he strikes when talking about this stuff is quite conspiratorial, he goes further than just saying that big business happens to get some decent breaks from political decisions.

Still your comprehension fails you. Nowhere did I say I accepted any such arguments, even if JAS has made them in the past. TBH, given your ability to interpret things in ways that were either not meant by the original poster and/or in a way that fits your World view, I'm not sure if I believe you re. what JAS is purported to have said anyway. You have a track record of this, so it's on you I'm afraid.

[JAS]

Navy, keep up. For several years since the EU referendum JAS has been putting forward the argument that the EU and big business are in each others pockets. And that the MEP's facilitate this.

The tone he strikes when talking about this stuff is quite conspiratorial, he goes further than just saying that big business happens to get some decent breaks from political decisions.

Nope, convenient and selective misinterpretation I’m afraid. I never said they are in each other’s pockets. What I have said is that the EU as an organisation was supposed to be for the benefits of the citizens of its member states, all too often however, powerful vested interests have successfully lobbied to the point where the EU doesn’t act in the best interests of citizens at all. Banking regulations (or the absence of them) are a good example of that.

[McLaren]

Jas/Navy

Do you just read books based on what is literally written on the page or do you try and interpret what the author really means on a slightly deeper level?

[super_realist]

I can sort of see where Mac is coming from. JAS appears to  have a narrative where he seems to blame every negative economic event as a contrived cloak and dagger piece of subterfuge engineered by the "nasty" right to keep the poor downtrodden and subservient and the "wealthy elite" as the beneficiaries. That sounds pretty crackpot conspiracy stuff to me.
It's typical champagne socialist stuff from a man with foreign property and grade b listed houses.

[JAS]

I can sort of see where Mac is coming from. JAS appears to  have a narrative where he seems to blame every negative economic event as a contrived cloak and dagger piece of subterfuge engineered by the "nasty" right to keep the poor downtrodden and subservient and the "wealthy elite" as the beneficiaries. That sounds pretty crackpot conspiracy stuff to me.
It's typical champagne socialist stuff from a man with foreign property and grade b listed houses.

Ey up, the WUM baton must have fell out the back of the bus this morning onto the bonnet of Super's car.

The key word in your commentary above is "appears"

Never judge a book by its cover
Unless you cover just another
and blind acceptance is a sign
of stupid fools who stand in line

I'm sure if I keep thinking I'll eventually work out the relevance to the argument of me previously owning foreign property and thinking about buying a listed building.

So humour me by answering me these... If somebody gets brought up in a reasonably rough working class neighbourhood but they work hard enough and smart enough to build a better future for themselves, should they then forego the fruits of that hard work and give it all away?. In essence should aspiration not be a thing for the working class? Or should one only be allowed to be aspirational from that background if they change their political views?
I love the term Champagne Socialist a) because I like champagne and b) because I have some obvious Socialist leanings in some aspects of politics. I guess however that most people that use the term use it in a derogatory and insulting way associating it with what they see as hypocrisy... c'est la vie.

[JAS]

Jas/Navy

Do you just read books based on what is literally written on the page or do you try and interpret what the author really means on a slightly deeper level?

No

There...interpret that on a slightly deeper level

[super_realist]

The inference in what you post is that only the wealthy/elite do well under the current government and that the poor and working class are deliberately downtrodden and subjugated to keep them there whereas your own situation (and millions of others) proves that isn't the case.

The bottom line is that if you're poor and uneducated, it doesn't really matter which party is in power, most will remain poor and uneducated. There is no conspiracy keeping people in those positions as you like to imply and you'd do well to refrain from judging every government on the poorest in society and the insinuation that we should all walk at their pace.

[Soul Requiem]

JAS

So benefitting from free market capitalism the very thing you rail against?

[JAS]

The inference in what you post is that only the wealthy/elite do well under the current government and that the poor and working class are deliberately downtrodden and subjugated to keep them there whereas your own situation (and millions of others) proves that isn't the case.

The bottom line is that if you're poor and uneducated, it doesn't really matter which party is in power, most will remain poor and uneducated. There is no conspiracy keeping people in those positions as you like to imply and you'd do well to refrain from judging every government on the poorest in society and the insinuation that we should all walk at their pace.

I’d suggest that’s not my inference but more your interpretation which I admit is marginally better than Macs but only marginally. My particular situation doesn’t prove anything politically whatsoever.
There’s nothing wrong in wanting a society where aspiration is rewarded, that’s what most hard working people want. Where the water gets muddied is that the left say that everybody should be helped (which is easy to say and equally easy to shoot down as unworkable). On the other hand the right like to say they help everyone by letting the wealth creators create wealth and everybody benefits, except they don’t because most (not all) wealth creators are far too greedy. There’s no conspiracy keeping the poor down no, there’s not exactly much of a will to do much about it either though. From where we as a country stand in the world and the wealth that exists in this country, we should NOT have the levels of poverty and deprevation that we do, same goes for the US. That’s a simple straightforward statement. The left can’t seem to solve it as they’re never in power long enough and the right can’t solve it because they don’t think it’s that much of an issue to them.

[McLaren]

Jas

I wonder if I hadn't used the term "conspiracy theory" whether you would have pushed back so much against my point?

If I had just said that you put forward an argument about money laundering, big business and politics being connected in some way that was too vague for me to accept would you have taken it better?

[super_realist]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

[JAS]

JAS

So benefitting from free market capitalism the very thing you rail against?

Did I EVER say I railed against Free Market Capitalism? Or did I make it fairly clear I detest the worst excesses and shadier practices of free market capitalism? There’s a subtle difference there which to be fair I thought you’d recognise. But...seeing as you clearly haven’t...what do you expect me to do, cryogenically freeze myself until the emergence of a socialist government? Or make the best of it? What is it with you right wingers that think People with left of center views shouldn’t try to better themselves under a right wing governments.

Does the same apply the other way round then? If you don’t believe in governments carrying a sizeable public sector funded through taxation other than a bare minimum why do you use the education system? the NHS? the Police, council roads etc.

[super_realist]

JAS

So benefitting from free market capitalism the very thing you rail against?

Did I EVER say I railed against Free Market Capitalism? Or did I make it fairly clear I detest the worst excesses and shadier practices of free market capitalism? There’s a subtle difference there which to be fair I thought you’d recognise. But...seeing as you clearly haven’t...what do you expect me to do, cryogenically freeze myself until the emergence of a socialist government? Or make the best of it? What is it with you right wingers that think People with left of center views shouldn’t try to better themselves under a right wing governments.

Does the same apply the other way round then? If you don’t believe in governments carrying a sizeable public sector funded through taxation other than a bare minimum why do you use the education system? the NHS? the Police, council roads etc.

It's not that people think that individuals shouldn't try and better themselves under a right wing government, of course they should, its the insinuation from you that they are prevented and hindered from doing so (unless they're already rich).

[superflyweight]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

You should have worn protection.

[JAS]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

Christ both you and Mac do perhaps need to go on an interpretation course/workshop.

That’s NOT what I say at all. People are poor for a variety of reasons from lack of education, lack of opportunity, bad luck through to yes, ill thought out govt policy. Usually it will be a combination of several of those factors and others. Now...where we actually agree I think is that the best way out of poverty MUST start with personal responsibility. If people want out of poverty they have to aspire to it and they have to start fighting for themselves. Should govt help? Yes I think they should if it’s going to lead to a better outcomes for the country as a whole. Should they help those that can’t be arsed...no. I‘ll say it in capitals so you get the point...I DO NOT BELIEVE in an unmotivated handout culture. It doesn’t work, it makes things worse. That being said I don’t think we’ve found the solution yet...obviously. I just don’t think it’s possible that it could come from the Right.
I actually think the left need to start understanding that they need to embrace aspirationalism and promote personal responsibility. I don’t see that happening any time soon though.

[JuliusHMarx]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

But surely you accept that some people in society do not have the same opportunities as other people?
Personally I think we should, as a society, be working towards equal opportunities for all, rather than just saying 'suck it up, it's unfair but that's the way it is'. Especially if we are saying that as someone who has had more of those opportunities, which I suspect the majority of us on here have.

[super_realist]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

Christ both you and Mac do perhaps need to go on an interpretation course/workshop.

That’s NOT what I say at all. People are poor for a variety of reasons from lack of education, lack of opportunity, bad luck through to yes, ill thought out govt policy. Usually it will be a combination of several of those factors and others. Now...where we actually agree I think is that the best way out of poverty MUST start with personal responsibility. If people want out of poverty they have to aspire to it and they have to start fighting for themselves. Should govt help? Yes I think they should if it’s going to lead to a better outcomes for the country as a whole. Should they help those that can’t be arsed...no. I‘ll say it in capitals so you get the point...I DO NOT BELIEVE in an unmotivated handout culture. It doesn’t work, it makes things worse. That being said I don’t think we’ve found the solution yet...obviously. I just don’t think it’s possible that it could come from the Right.
I actually think the left need to start understanding that they need to embrace aspirationalism and promote personal responsibility. I don’t see that happening any time soon though.

I was simply saying that is how it comes across when you write. Before you think Mac and I need to go on a comprehension course perhaps look a bit closer to home and consider if you could your point across in such a way that we didn't take it that way.

[super_realist]

What are you on about Jas? You literally say that the poor in this country are such because of the elite of this country.

I'm fine with aspiration, in fact I encourage it, bit it seems that you want people with no aspiration to be handed everything on a plate.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living or a particular standard of living. You have to go out and get it, it isn't given or handed out. For example my brother and I grew up in the same house, same opportunities, same encouragement etc. I went to uni, got an MSc and earn about 3 times more than him now. That's not a result of government inequity. That's my hard work.

You're right, we shouldn't have the levels of poverty we do, but we shouldn't have the levels of obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc either. Do we blame governments for that too or should we expect people to take a bit more responsibility for their lives instead of looking to blame someone else?
That's one of the biggest problems we have, people are always blaming someone else for their situation.

But surely you accept that some people in society do not have the same opportunities as other people?
Personally I think we should, as a society, be working towards equal opportunities for all, rather than just saying 'suck it up, it's unfair but that's the way it is'. Especially if we are saying that as someone who has had more of those opportunities, which I suspect the majority of us on here have.

Bottom line is that regardless of the political system it doesn't suit everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a failure just because not everyone benefits from it.
You have to accept it won't suit everyone instead of people claiming that certain groups are deliberately being marginalised as how it comes across when Jas writes (whether he intends it to or not)

[McLaren]

Jas

Politically we are probably quite close, but as I said I just can't get on board with vague ideas about evil corporations and politicians working behind the scenes. For starters they are not competent enough to get away with it.

But I clearly do think specific aspects of how businesses are regulated like how much tax they pay or what environmental protections they must obey are important. I just don't think there is a wider conspiracy at play, just people being selfish.

[super_realist]

I think it's more that JAS seems to imply that corporations and governments are in cahoots to actively discriminate against and exploit the less well off in society. That's where I think he has the tin foil hat on.

[JuliusHMarx]

Depends what you mean be less well off. Certainly there have been cartels where the wealthy exploit the populace in general. And the banking crisis of 2008 was essentially caused by the greed of big business working against the interests of the 'working man' - but again, it depends on what you view as a conspiracy or just corporations putting profits before ethics.

[McLaren]

Depends what you mean be less well off. Certainly there have been cartels where the wealthy exploit the populace in general. And the banking crisis of 2008 was essentially caused by the greed of big business working against the interests of the 'working man' - but again, it depends on what you view as a conspiracy or just corporations putting profits before ethics.

I think saying it is people being selfish and putting profits before ethics is more accurate then the slightly conspiratorial tone Jas uses.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas/Navy

Do you just read books based on what is literally written on the page or do you try and interpret what the author really means on a slightly deeper level?

Q.E.D. You read something and re-interpret it to fit your pre-existing views. Ta for confirming .

[JAS]

Depends what you mean be less well off. Certainly there have been cartels where the wealthy exploit the populace in general. And the banking crisis of 2008 was essentially caused by the greed of big business working against the interests of the 'working man' - but again, it depends on what you view as a conspiracy or just corporations putting profits before ethics.

I think saying it is people being selfish and putting profits before ethics is more accurate then the slightly conspiratorial tone Jas uses.

I’ve said pretty much exactly the same thing. How is what I’ve said somehow more conspiratorial in tone??

[super_realist]

Is there a more insufferable, hypocritical smarmy couple than Harry and Meghan?

[McLaren]

Is there a more insufferable, hypocritical smarmy couple than Harry and Meghan?

What have they done now to hack off daily mail readers?

[super_realist]

Is there a more insufferable, hypocritical smarmy couple than Harry and Meghan?

What have they done now to hack off daily mail readers?

I told you the Mail now has a lefty remainder at the helm Mac.
Dacre is moving on to Ofcom.

The Sussex's have moved from their desire to get out of the spotlight by signing a deal for a fly on the wall documentary about them. Not really surprising given they are Mrs and Mr Hypocrite. I can't really think of two people who are greater oxygen thiefs and wastes of skin than those idiots.

[McLaren]

Super

I don't watch reality TV so it won't affect me, I am surprised this is something that you will have to watch?

Although if they start revealing Diana or Andrew secrets I would probably watch it. Or if it is a Louis Theroux weird weekend.


In general they seem like they are sensible enough, they are essentially good left leaning people in a strange world.

[super_realist]

I won't watch it at all of course, I'm simply incredulous as to A) their utter hypocrisy and B) that anyone would give these c**ts a brass farthing.

In what way are they "good people" Mac, they are the antithesis of people you should despise Mac. The type who tell you how to live your life but do exactly the opposite.

[JAS]

I won't watch it at all of course, I'm simply incredulous as to A) their utter hypocrisy and B) that anyone would give these c**ts a brass farthing.

In what way are they "good people" Mac, they are the antithesis of people you should despise Mac. The type who tell you how to live your life but do exactly the opposite.

It’s all a conspiracy :-p

[super_realist]

I won't watch it at all of course, I'm simply incredulous as to A) their utter hypocrisy and B) that anyone would give these c**ts a brass farthing.

In what way are they "good people" Mac, they are the antithesis of people you should despise Mac. The type who tell you how to live your life but do exactly the opposite.

It’s all a conspiracy :-p

[McLaren]

I won't watch it at all of course, I'm simply incredulous as to A) their utter hypocrisy and B) that anyone would give these c**ts a brass farthing.

In what way are they "good people" Mac, they are the antithesis of people you should despise Mac. The type who tell you how to live your life but do exactly the opposite.

If we concede they do dable in some hypocrisy it wouldn't negate any of their arguments on the climate, equality, social justice etc. I think more prominent people giving the correct message is vital in the age of celebrity. The masses won't hear this stuff from an intellectual source so they might as well get it by any means possible.


Ps. Diana was assassinated by the royals. #thetruth

[super_realist]

Yes it would Mac. No one ever wants to be lectured on anything by hypocrites. They don't care about the climate one jot. They talk about it (without understanding it) because it gives them a fan base.
All these hypocrites who try to lecture us about things have no need to be hypocritical. If they genuinely cared about what they were talking about the likes of Harry and Meghan, Leonardo Di Caprio, Emma Thompson, David Attenborough, Cumberbatch etc could afford to retire on the spot and practice what they preach.

I saw a great video the other day by an energy company interviewing Londoners about what they thought was the biggest contributor to CO2, and every single one of them said it was vehicle emissions. It isn't, heating and domestic power supply is by far the biggest source, yet these celebrities are protesting against transportation. That's why people shouldn't listen to these idiots.
I also read another argument by Polestar today (Volvo) about the true CO2 output of electric cars and you'd need to drive your EV on the global grid for 70,000 km to equal the CO2 output of a petrolcar, so these idiotic celebrities are getting people to focus on sources which are far less important than the likes of the house they live in, yet we never see people protesting this do we?
Virtue signalling tossers.

[McLaren]

Hypocrisy might make you incredulous but it doesn't defeat an argument.

Think about the argument being made and not who is making it. #StayRational

[super_realist]

Hypocrisy might make you incredulous but it doesn't defeat an argument.

Think about the argument being made and not who is making it. #StayRational

It does when their argument is targeting less important sources of CO2 and competely ignoring others which are more important but aren't quite as sexy for their poorly informed doomsday cult

[beninho]

Realist getting riled about people he doesn't care about who are making a programme he won't watch.

Weird.

Oh, just noticed he said virtue signalling. Love it!

[JuliusHMarx]

Can 'woke' be far behind?

[super_realist]

Realist getting riled about people he doesn't care about who are making a programme he won't watch.

Weird.

Oh, just noticed he said virtue signalling. Love it!

If they aren't virtue signalling then what are they? Certainly not sincere.

[McLaren]

Hypocrisy might make you incredulous but it doesn't defeat an argument.

Think about the argument being made and not who is making it. #StayRational

It does when their argument is targeting less important sources of CO2 and competely ignoring others which are more important but aren't quite as sexy for their poorly informed doomsday cult

so it is about the argument?

[super_realist]

Hypocrisy might make you incredulous but it doesn't defeat an argument.

Think about the argument being made and not who is making it. #StayRational

It does when their argument is targeting less important sources of CO2 and competely ignoring others which are more important but aren't quite as sexy for their poorly informed doomsday cult

so it is about the argument?

It's about hypocritical climate doomsayers not fully understanding the issue and focusing on less important aspects of climate change whilst ignoring others which might either have a greater impact or which dont suit their argument.

Would you ever focus on racism for example and only focus on racism against black people but not against Asians for example? That's effectively where they are with their argument.

[McLaren]

Hypocrisy might make you incredulous but it doesn't defeat an argument.

Think about the argument being made and not who is making it. #StayRational

It does when their argument is targeting less important sources of CO2 and competely ignoring others which are more important but aren't quite as sexy for their poorly informed doomsday cult

so it is about the argument?

It's about hypocritical climate doomsayers not fully understanding the issue and focusing on less important aspects of climate change whilst ignoring others which might either have a greater impact or which dont suit their argument.

Would you ever focus on racism for example and only focus on racism against black people but not against Asians for example? That's effectively where they are with their argument.

Yes, but lets not get into specificity of black lives matter again.

[super_realist]

I wasn't talking about that, but don't you agree that if you are campaigner against something that it makes most sense to know your argument and what you are protesting about? Most of them don't seem to have a clue, and this is borne out by people who have left the cult.

[JuliusHMarx]

I always thought the biggest contributor was cows f@rting. Where is the evidence for it being domestic heating and power? (serious question)

[super_realist]

I always thought the biggest contributor was cows f@rting. Where is the evidence for it being domestic heating and power? (serious question)

This was human contribution they were talking about, probably should have made that clear, and by that I mean direct usage, not by products

[McLaren]

I wasn't talking about that, but don't you agree that if you are campaigner against something that it makes most sense to know your argument and what you are protesting about? Most of them don't seem to have a clue, and this is borne out by people who have left the cult.

But it still comes down to whether they are making sound arguments or not. What behavior they actually practice will not change the soundness of their arguments about climate change.

[super_realist]

I wasn't talking about that, but don't you agree that if you are campaigner against something that it makes most sense to know your argument and what you are protesting about? Most of them don't seem to have a clue, and this is borne out by people who have left the cult.

But it still comes down to whether they are making sound arguments or not. What behavior they actually practice will not change the soundness of their arguments about climate change.

The arguments aren't sound though if they seek to convince people that the biggest threat from climate change is motor vehicles.
Are you seriously claiming that XR make sound arguments?

[McLaren]

If you want to move onto how effective their behavior is in changing other peoples actions then how they actually behave will impact how persuasive they are. But i hope you can accept there is a clear distinction between how sound their argument is and how well they can convince others to adopt what they preach.

[JuliusHMarx]

Isn't transportation overall about the same as any other contributor, asuuming domestic and industrial usage are split. I'm still not certain of exactly what you are saying is far and away the biggest contributor.

[Sponsored content]