wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:15 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:31 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

I don't need to be an owner to defend something that is being
misrepresented.

But the main misrepresenting is in the hype and advertising.
That does not mean that the report is not skewed which is what my post
was about. The 'hype' is subjective anyway.

Perhaps you'd give details of how you think the article was skewed?

I was referring to the 'dust to dust' report. See my first post.

Oh here we go. Make accusations of 'bias' then run away when challenged
to give details of said bias.

My first post gave details of the bias,

No it didn't.

if you bothered reading.

I did, but ****nose why since it was the usual ********, long on
accusation, short on detail:

"Not that stupid dust to dust report. Of course if you include R&D
costs of new technology it is going to cost more. The point is that it
will eventually lower.

Accusing Prius drivers of being smug yet it's dicks like this
journalist and his ilk that seem so obsessed with the likes of Prius
drivers. Is it masturbatory material for them?

The Telegraph should stick to printing planted MI6 stories, their
speciality."

Would you care to give some specifics rather than make a noise and wave
your hands?