egafd.com

[quote]Your 3 year old child wants to cross the M6 in rush hour. An assumption is that the child is likely to get seriously injured. This is an assumption which may or may not turn out correct.

10s of millions of people died in the Ist World War. An assumption ala Sam Slater is that if the UK had not been involved, there would have been more people killed as a result of the German, Habsburg and Ottoman Empires. This is an assumption which may or may not have turned out correct given the differening circumstances but is huge in terms of the millions of different factors that would decide whether it turned out to be correct.[/quote]

Wait. So you're equating the probability of politicians keeping their promises with 3 year old children being injured after being run over by two tonnes of metal hurtling at them over 60mph? Well, that's won me over!

[quote]If you think that these two assumptions are equally valid and credible as the basis for discussion, then Samuel you are much more stupid than I previously thought.[/quote]

Sam just points out your hypocrisy and here come the insults!

For the record, our assumptions are based on two simple things. Mine is the assumption of what despotic monarchies and dictators will do if left unchallenged; your's is what politicians will do regarding promises if given the opportunity. While the consequences of both our assumptions may differ greatly, the probability difference may not be as great as you assume (there's that word again).

My assumption of what despotic monarchies and dictators will do if left unchallenged is based on the actions of many despotic monarchies and dictators who were left unchallenged. The record isn't good and thus I think my assumptions quite reasonable and based on previous events (like yours I may add).

I have no quarrel with your assumption, here, but I'm taking you to task because you're being a hypocrite.

I might be pushing it a bit but can you tell me why, when we disagree, you always resort to calling my intelligence into question? You don't do it so much with others on here whom you find yourself at loggerheads with.

So when you say as you did re. the British involvement in the 1st World War

""I really can't believe you don't realise that the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires wouldn't have killed many more people than 15 million, had we not stood up to them".

with typical Sam Slater certainty in the veracity of your argument and then compare it in terms of inherent complexity of assumptions to me saying that I realise it is a guess but I feel it was more than likely that had the Labour party won the last election, the Future Jobs Fund, Small Business Guarantee operating on May 6th would have continued to operate after the election, I should take you seriously?

I am sorry that pointing out the obvious has clearly so offended you.

I will leave you to finish this part of the thread.

Cheers
D

You equated the probability of politicians going through with promises and three year old children being hurt by hurtling two-tonne vehicles. And you want me to take you seriously?

With typical David Johnson evasion techniques you failed to have a counter-argument to my hypothesising about unchecked despotic monarchies and you've failed to show me you're not being a hypocrite here.

All you've done, on both threads, is insinuate I'm stupid and come up with daft statements about three year olds being hurt by speeding metallic objects and me watching too many John Wayne movies.

Oh, and you also failed (not for the first time) to answer my question: Why is it when we disagree you call my intelligence into question more than others here?

My pulling you up on your hypocrisy started off as a gentle bit of ribbing to remind you to practice what you yourself have preached to others. This rib-tickling made you VERY defensive, VERY swiftly and not what I expected at all. I expected you to laugh at your own slip-up and mutter something about having to be a little more vigilant when I'm around. Well, studying your reaction leads me to wonder how used you are to having your views questioned by others. I really ruffled your feathers without even trying.

Maybe for the sake of the forum I shouldn't disagree, question or hold you to account for anything again. But then again is that healthy? Maybe your own pride is more important to you than healthy discourse. That's arrogance for you.......not that there's anything wrong with arrogance.......if you're right. When you're wrong, though, it becomes an irritant to others and hinders gentlemanly conversation. I say all this not to just criticise but to inform and educate.

Try not to see alternative views as a personal attack and get involved with the debate rather than standing to one side demanding multiple answers to multiple questions. No one likes to lose, David, but I do believe the adage about learning more from defeat than victory.

I do hope we can clear this matter up and move on.

!laugh! !laugh! !laugh!

Osbornes plans are an utter failure.

Public sector debt is now increasing. Any savings he made are more than made up by lower tax revenues and higher costs from job seekers and working family tax credit.!nuts!

The end result is increased public debt, low growth, higher unemployment, lower living standards. fucking idiots!

The really worrying thing is that Osborne's views i.e. austerity, austerity, austerity, hold sway over nearly all of Europe now. Europe seems to have been taken over by a bunch of deficit fetishists who in the case of Greece and Italy aren't even elected politicians.

So the inevitable result of all of this, is that everyone cuts and cuts, the economies contract and as you point out the deficits rise which of course, shows we need more cuts etc etc etc.

Insane!

Cheers
D

So, first of all you call me a ?hypocrite?. Then you call me ?evasive? because I don?t defend myself against you calling me a ?hypocrite?. Then you accuse me of ?insinuation? and making ?daft statements?. Then you say I am ?very defensive? and you chide me about not accepting ?having to be a little more vigilant when I'm around?. Presumably you are suggesting that I have to be more vigilant when the brilliant Sam Slater is on the forum?

Then you wonder whether I am used to people questioning my views on this forum. Quite, no one ever disagrees with me on this forum, Sam. Then you congratulate yourself on ?really ruffling your feathers without trying?. Then you accuse me of being too ?proud? and of being ?arrogant?.

Then you accuse me of being an ?irritant? to others and ?hindering gentlemanly conversation? of which the post of yours that I am referring to is obviously a wonderful example of gentlemanly conversation.

Then you point out ?I say all of this not just to criticise but to inform or educate?. Sam, could you please give me your account details so I can pay in some money in thanks for your time spent in educating me? It?s been invaluable.

I don?t know about education, but on the amusement front, Samuel, I have never laughed so hard at any post on this forum as much as I have pissed myself laughing at yours here.

And the reason for your non-stop onslaught here? You feel I have been nastier to you than others on the forum!!! No doubt you will say "Oh I was just trying to ruffle our feathers in my post"

I am reminded of the Monty Python line in the Life of Brian, something like he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.

Cheers
D

More misery for the low paid brought to you courtesy of Gideon Osbourne.

[quote]So, first of all you call me a ?hypocrite?.[/quote]

Correct.

[quote]Then you call me ?evasive? because I don?t defend myself against you calling me a ?hypocrite?.[/quote]

No. I called you evasive due to your general disinclination of answering my simple questions. (yet you expect it of others which takes us back to the point directly above)

[quote]Then you accuse me of ?insinuation? and making ?daft statements?.[/quote]

I did.

[quote]Then you say I am ?very defensive? and you chide me about not accepting ?having to be a little more vigilant when I'm around?.[/quote]

You were! And you really should be more vigilant.

[quote]Presumably you are suggesting that I have to be more vigilant when the brilliant Sam Slater is on the forum?[/quote]

Yes, and thank you for the compliment but it really wasn't needed.

[quote]Then you wonder whether I am used to people questioning my views on this forum.[/quote]

Yes. You don't seem to like it.

[quote]Quite, no one ever disagrees with me on this forum, Sam.[/quote]

You don't seem to mind it so much when they disagree. It's like you treat me differently and I feel picked-on. If I was of a more feeble nature I'd be quite upset.

[quote]Then you congratulate yourself on ?really ruffling your feathers without trying?.[/quote]

I wasn't congratulating myself. I was so taken aback at your reaction to my gentle ribbing that I was all asunder. Sorry if it came across that way.

[quote]Then you accuse me of being too ?proud? and of being ?arrogant?.[/quote]

I was merely putting these personality traits forward as explanations for your attitude when pressed upon certain things, or when criticised (even in the gentlest way).

[quote]Then you accuse me of being an ?irritant? to others and ?hindering gentlemanly conversation? of which the post of yours that I am referring to is obviously a wonderful example of gentlemanly conversation.[/quote]

I didn't really call you an irritant in such a direct manner. I was just saying that arrogance when a person is wrong is much more irritable than when you're right. You're welcome to disagree. As for gentlemanly conversation......I was dipping my pinkie into the pond of frivolity......just the tip!

[quote]Then you point out ?I say all of this not just to criticise but to inform or educate?. Sam, could you please give me your account details so I can pay in some money in thanks for your time spent in educating me? It?s been invaluable.[/quote]

Dear me, David! You have me all wrong. My advice is completely free to absorb, ignore and pass on to others as you see fit. I suppose a good modern thing to call it would be 'open source'.

[quote]I don?t know about education, but on the amusement front, Samuel, I have never laughed so hard at any post on this forum as much as I have pissed myself laughing at yours here. [/quote]

I'm glad I put you in a jolly mood. You certainly didn't come across that way yesterday. Maybe now you're in a better mood you'll feel a little more willing about answering my question regarding your regular bouts of calling my intelligence into question.

[quote]And the reason for your non-stop onslaught here? You feel I have been nastier to you than others on the forum!!![/quote]

Please don't call it an onslaught, dear boy. You're quite making me out to be a monster! It really was a ribbing mixed in with a gentle reminder of your hypocrisy. We're all hypocrites at times. I just pointed yours out as it directly referred to a previous debate we had. Chin up............oh, and if you could explain your reasons for the change in attitude between debating me and most of the others on here I'd be grateful.

[quote]I am reminded of the Monty Python line in the Life of Brian, something like he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.[/quote]

You know I've seen the others but not Life of Brian, yet? I have it and shall watch it before the week's out.

Regards,

Sam.

Err, given I appear to be the only person on this forum that can be arsed to reply to you, I think I have done my bit, don't you?

When I opened your reply, to be perfectly honest, I just thought I couldn't care less what you think.

I can't even be bothered to read all of your reply.

Sorry! Not a very nice thing to say, but honest all the same.
D