A comment on LBC today by James o'Brien.

[RedHerring2]

I'm sorry but the statistics, created by people going through court, are that 50%, are under the age of 18, and the majority of the rest are working in profesional jobs, including estate agents, youth workers, and primary school teachers?

I'd be interested to read your source of information MM.
Just the first google hit reveals the average age to be between 18 & 24

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...ns/uk-rioters-by-age-and-place-of-res[/QUOTE]

Newsnight. You might like to watch it on iPlayer? Surely they don't lie? Surely Politicians tell the truth? You might to watch it sometime.

A little problem with your understanding of TV programmes, it seems:

It was stated on TV yesterday that 50% were over 18, and a large percentage of those were in work.

Sure I'd like to watch it, if you can give me the full reference, e.g. what night, who said it, etc. It might have been one of the "full-of-****" politicians speaking anecdotally. Without a full reference I can't make a judgement.



BTW, notice how I give full references to support my argument, whereas you fail to give any references initially, and only when pressed give vague references.
I thought you were an experienced researcher?

[I do a lot of internet research, and tracking down of facts, which is challenging on the brain, but in a good way, ..

 

[Mickymoody]

Do you know what iPlayer is? Good. Look for 2 nights ago programmes...look up Newsnight. Found it? Not hard.

Or go to iPlayer, search 'Newsnight', amazing this internet.

Go to Google type in 'Newsnight on BBC', I'm sure a link will take you there.

David Dimbleby said it, honest govenerer, it wasn't me!

 

[RedHerring2]

There you go again, see!
You're on the defensive, so you respond with stupid comments like:

Do you know what iPlayer is? Good. Look for 2 nights ago programmes...look up Newsnight. Found it? Not hard.

Or go to iPlayer, search 'Newsnight', amazing this internet.

Go to Google type in 'Newsnight on BBC', I'm sure a link will take you there.

David Dimbleby said it, honest govenerer, it wasn't me!

You're on the defensive 'cos you know you've spouted a load of crap.
This explains why most of your posts deteriorate into abuse, because you start being abusive as a defense mechanism when other posters challenge your opinion.

For a start, David Dimbleby isn't on Newsnight, he's on Question Time.
So much for your ability to provide a real source of your information.
It also reflects on your ability to watch TV and understand what you are watching. Oh, and BTW, David Dimbleby isn't a politician, he's a presenter.

Secondly, as an experienced researcher, do you always repeat others' claims without reasonable evidence?
I suppose, during your research and paper on the canals, you repeated facts and figures, as reported to you, by any old fisherman you happened to bump into. Or perhaps you based your paper on gossip reported to you by the local dog-walker.

Thirdly, you appear to have made two differing counter-claims within 24 hours, without any proper references, without any explanation and without any apology for misleading your audience. Oh yes, and BTW, your counter-claim also referred to the same source of information.

Fourthly, as an experienced researcher, you'd be only too happy to reinforce your opinions with other documented evidence. Unless, of course, your research is primary research, not secondary research. Although I doubt if you'd know the difference. If it was primary research, as an experienced researcher you'd explain your methodology in order to reassure your reader that your approach was appropriate.

Finally, if you insist on plucking figures out of the air, without any primary or secondary research, then claim it as your unsubstantiated opinion, not as reported by some imaginary source, for which you cannot or will not provide a proper reference.

So, in future, do us all a favour and quote your references when you make claims of facts, figures or statistics. It gives us the opportunity to check your source of information, that a) you're being accurate with your presentation, b) you haven't misunderstood the original claims, and c) we can reassure ourselves as to the quality of the evidence/research, etc.

BTW, your original post, which I had edited out the, then, irrelevant bit continued with:

............................../
Can you justify your claims, against the proof? Because frankly, your claims are totally made up, and completely unfounded. Do you have any evidence, that opossses the real data available? Or are you just making it up?

Hmmm?

 

[Mickymoody]

Slip of the tongue, Newsnight/ Question Time, as they were both special editions.

Where do the words 'experienced researcher', come from? I've said I research stuff, and I'm old, don't put forwards words that are not true.

Then you admit to editing, and altering my posts..

So read the information, watch the information. If you don't know how to understand information presented to you, I suggest you watch the lies that the media tells you constantly.

 

[RedHerring2]

Slip of the tongue, Newsnight/ Question Time, as they were both special editions.

Wow, an admission of a mistake. You are improving.
Now about those references so that we can check your source:
Who said and when :

I'm sorry but the statistics, created by people going through court, are that 50%, are under the age of 18, and the majority of the rest are working in profesional jobs, including estate agents, youth workers, and primary school teachers?

And who said and when:

It was stated on TV yesterday that 50% were over 18, and a large percentage of those were in work.

I assume that this information came from David Dimbleby on Question Time.
You have failed, miserably, to give proper references for either.

Where do the words 'experienced researcher', come from? I've said I research stuff, and I'm old, don't put forwards words that are not true.

From one of your posts:

[I do a lot of internet research, and tracking down of facts, which is challenging on the brain, but in a good way, ..

You have experience of research, according to you, thus you are an experienced researcher, according to you.

Then you admit to editing, and altering my posts..

Certainly I admit to editing out any irrelevant bits of your post in order to illustrate my points and to avoid unneccesary quoting. I certainly would not alter your posts to change the semantics, although most of the time, it would matter little because you cannot change the semantics of drivel, it's still drivel. Although it might even improve it.

So read the information, watch the information. If you don't know how to understand information presented to you,

I'd love to read/watch/digest/consider and to form my own opinion from information presented to me. Unfortunately, you will not or cannot provide references for your claims/opinions/repeating of facts, figures or statistics.
So I'm faced with a choice: accept your opinion/claims at face value without any checking of your source, or, provoke you into providing a reference for your information, which should have been provided by you without any provocation.
I'm not just referring to this occasion, but to every occasion that you post.

I suggest you watch the lies that the media tells you constantly.

I'd love to watch the programme that you could refer me to, but you won't.
But, wait a minute, aren't you the one that was watching "the lies that the media tells you constantly" (sic) and incorrectly repeated the information given?

So come on MM, you've presented your opinion, dressed up as fact given by reputable sources, but you won't provide adequate references from where you gleaned the competing bit of information.
So, pray tell us, which of your competing claims do you now suggest is accurate and which one was completely off the mark?

Will you now apologise to your readers for the mistake?

 

[Mickymoody]

It's good to see that you have apologised for the wrong that you have stated, but I have made none.

Who said and when was NEWSNIGHT. As I stated. I apologised for the mixup. Between Newsnight and QT. You don't seem to acknowledge that information of fact?

You say I'm an 'experienced researcher', but yor proof of this is,

I do a lot of internet research, and tracking down of facts, which is challenging on the brain, but in a good way, ..

Which proves you a lier.

Then you quote..

Certainly I admit to editing out any irrelevant bits of your post in order to illustrate my points and to avoid unneccesary quoting. I certainly would not alter your posts to change the semantics, although most of the time, it would matter little because you cannot change the semantics of drivel, it's still drivel. Although it might even improve it

So you admit to altering my posts, so your personal interpretation and quoted on is fair, as opposed to my comment, that you purposfully disrespected, for no reason, and had a strange attachment to?