In or out

[blightymam]

I came on here looking for DIY advice and I stuck around to help others where I could .

That's how it works Himmy, it's a DIY forum, not a site to hit people with your 'facts'. Try helping some more folk out here on DIY related topics, it may keep you from obsessing on the general discussion thread.

 

[fender]

Well,

Had a break from here for a bit, but I see nothing has changed.
Good luck guys in trying to debate anything with Himmy. He's still spouting his nauseating drivel, along with his pompous attitude I see..........

After a while, you'll find that it REALLY IS more interesting watching paint dry than reading his continuous verbal diarrhoea.........

 

[Gerrydelasel]

He's really highlighting the lack of real substance to the remain arguments.

As Norway's Anne Enger so concisely put it:
"To what problem is the EU a solution?"

 

[Himaginn]

Yes there is an assumption, but the question is not loaded. No definitions are required.

Then why do you now go on to provide some definitions of "too high"?

When I ask you if you think immigration is too high you could pick any number of possibles: Too high for the education system/teachers/class size to cope with; too high for the NHS to cope with; too high for private or social housing to keep up with; too high for social cohesion to cope with; too high for the job market to satisfy... pick any one you like... pick one I hadn't thought of... that's how a conversation works.

I do believe you're getting the idea. If there is an assumption, but on only one person's part, they need to share that assumption. Therefore definitions are required. You said you'd have to know what my job was and we'd need a mutually agreed frame of reference, before you could offer an opinion on whether you thought I was paid too much.
I asked you for that type of information, and you refused to share your assumptions and frames of reference with me. In fact you'd pointedly and angrily stated none was needed. Therefore I invented my own. You didn't like it.
I chose "too high for continued economic prosperity", but you didn't like it because I picked a definition which you didn't think existed or applied.
Subsequently you've been on a rant slinging insults and trying to reclaim your credibility.

Clearly the current migration levels are not too high for continued economic prosperity!

If I ask you, do you think that bar is too high?"
You'd have to ask me, "too high for what? Jumping over, limboing under, stop the dogs getting out, keep the lions in?"

Just because the discussion develops into a more complex discussion than you could have envisaged does not make it erroneous.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Then why do you now go on to provide some definitions of "too high"?

Because I'm explaining how normal conversational techniques work, to you.

If there is an assumption, but on only one person's part, they need to share that assumption.

But there was no assumption on one person's part. That's the point. The context was self evident to you (and to everyone). If you ask if you earn too much after previously talking about how much you earn and having inumerous media articles published about it, then again the context is obvious

I chose "too high for continued economic prosperity", but you didn't like it because I picked a definition which you didn't think existed or applied.

I would have liked it if it hadn't taken five further posts over an entire day just to get to that simple answer, which any normal person would have given right away.

 

[Himaginn]

Do you have autism? Autistics struggle to interpret context.

I thought that today as well, made me wonder.

I'll third that. Definitely something wrong.

If I agree with you guys, then it can only mean one thing... We're wrong and he is right. Obvious innit?

So the majority is right irrespective of whether they're right or wrong?
More nonsense!
Three people who think I have autism. (Why autism? Why not high blood pressure or measles? Obvious init.)
Two of those are constantly peddling myth and nonsense, and the third is persistently phrasing such vague comments to be either completely unintelligible or likely to be misconstrued. And when the comments are interpreted, whichever way, Elfi claims it's been misconstrued.

So I'm expected to accept their unsupported, unsupportable, unsubstantiated, insulting allegations because there's three of 'em.

They couldn't hold a logical discussion so they resort to insults. And they claim that makes them right.

 

[Himaginn]

Do you have autism? Autistics struggle to interpret context.

I thought that today as well, made me wonder.

I'll third that. Definitely something wrong.

Mate of my wife read some of his drivel recently. She works in mental health and she seriously believes he has "issues". Sad really. That's why I try not to encourage him anymore. It is hard not to get pulled in though when someone talks such a massive amount of schit.

I see someone else has developed a case of "my opportunity to retrieve a bit of my credibility by resorting to insults."

Do you not see that an attempt to retrieve credibility by resorting to accusations of mental health issues destroys even more of your credibility?

It's a sad day for GD forum when four of the posters resort to such insulting behaviour as accusing another of mental health issues because they've lost a discussion.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

resorting to accusations of mental health issues destroys even more of your credibility?

Not when everyone agrees with him.

There's no need to get defensive, Himaggin. The accusation was an honest appraisal of the way you conduct youself -not an insult.

 

[Himaginn]

That's how it works Himmy, it's a DIY forum, not a site to hit people with your 'facts'.

We've done this point over and over again.
Go back and revise if you've forgotten.

 

[Himaginn]

Well,

Had a break from here for a bit, but I see nothing has changed.
Good luck guys in trying to debate anything with Himmy. He's still spouting his nauseating drivel, along with his pompous attitude I see..........

After a while, you'll find that it REALLY IS more interesting watching paint dry than reading his continuous verbal diarrhoea.........

But you know you can't resist. It's why you came back.

 

[Himaginn]

Then why do you now go on to provide some definitions of "too high"?

Because I'm explaining how normal conversational techniques work, to you.

You feel you, who asks loaded questions with inbuilt assumptions which you refuse to acknowledge (until later) assume you have the qualifications to explain to me how discussions work?

If there is an assumption, but on only one person's part, they need to share that assumption.

But there was no assumption on one person's part. That's the point. The context was self evident to you (and to everyone).

That was why I felt the need for you to define too high for what. When you couldn't I used my definition!

If you ask if you earn too much after previously talking about how much you earn and having inumerous media articles published about it, then again the context is obvious.

Then the assumptions are obvious and the context is obvious and the frame of reference is obvious.
You came out of the blue with "do i think immigration is too high?"
I asked for some context, some definition, some frame of reference and you refused or were incapable of recognising that any was needed.

I chose "too high for continued economic prosperity", but you didn't like it because I picked a definition which you didn't think existed or applied.

I would have liked it if it hadn't taken five further posts over an entire day just to get to that simple answer, which any normal person would have given right away.

I would have liked it if you'd responded with my request for some context, some definition, some frame of reference, instead of multiple posts claiming none was needed!
At last you are realising that some was needed and you're still trying to reclaim some credibility, not least by resorting to accusations of autism, and all you're doing is destroying more of your credibility.

 

[Himaginn]

resorting to accusations of mental health issues destroys even more of your credibility?

Not when everyone agrees with him.

There's no need to get defensive, Himaggin. The accusation was an honest appraisal of the way you conduct youself -not an insult.

You're like a group of infants in the playground shouting insults in the hope that the majority must be right 'cos there's more of them.
Try intelligent discussion. I find it works better.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Try intelligent discussion. I find it works better.

(Edited out of respect for Himaggin's sensibilities)

 

[Himaginn]

Try intelligent discussion. I find it works better.

You've done pictures before, that one as well. It didn't help much that time either.

 

[Himaginn]

The accusation was an honest appraisal of the way you conduct youself -not an insult.

And your qualifications?
Ignoring, for now, your ability to ask loaded questions without realising that they are loaded, to make assumptions which you refuse to acknowledge or share, to resort to insults when the argument is lost, etc, etc.