Makerfield doubts

Not really, it is my opinion and not an ad-hom comment,

I said it was an ad-hom attitude.

To say that you would listen to something if said by someone else but not the exact same thing said by me is 100% deciding on the basis of the who and not the what.
anyone else saying that, I might have listened.

It is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

1782129295915.png
 
I said it was an ad-hom attitude.

To say that you would listen to something if said by someone else but not the exact same thing said by me is 100% deciding on the basis of the who and not the what.


It is exactly what "ad hominem" means.

View attachment 417058
You are misreading and reading too much into my comment.
 
I've no idea what you're trying to prove or disprove.

I'm not trying to "prove or disprove" anything. I was simply trying to point out to @martygturner that he shouldn't get too excited about the "wisdom" of "65% of voters looked at the reform offering and chose something else" because that 65% is down on the GE figure, and if you lump both Re-parties together support for their offering is up by 47% from the GE.


It's pretty rare for any winner to get over 50%, which by your argument appears to be when you think it's a valid outcome. By that logic we'd never have a government of any party.

I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that I'm arguing about the validity of the outcome. It's certainly not come from anything I posted.

That comparing the byelection results with the GE ones becomes arguing that the outcome is only valid if the winner gets over 50% is truly bizarre.
 
Did not expect to get a email demonstrating US levels of conspiracy stupidity from a UK DIY forum when I got up this morning. Impressive. I'd suggest you take a look at the number of flag shaggers vs counter-protestors at ALL of the recent racist turn-outs. Might make the Makerfield result a bit less 'suspicious'.
 
Back
Top