Apparently it is. You claimed I said I had "evidence" that brexit will have a positive impact on the uk. And you know that all along I was arguing that all long I've been saying that all I have is what you have .martin_p wrote:Correct, but it's easy to put words in peoples mouths that they've never said. I thought you'd understand that.
martin_p wrote:As long as you continue to misunderstand the uses of the word evidence you'll continue to get this wrong and continue to look a fool. I even tried helping you by posting some dictionary examples of how to use 'evidence', please read them.
Now you're back Ringo, maybe you can answer thisRingoMcCartney wrote: Have a great weekend ladies
Humour.aggi wrote:Now you're back Ringo, maybe you can answer this
I'm not really going to bother with the rest of the post. My definition of evidence comes from a science background and differs from yours but we both know they'll never meet.
I'm curious about how you signed off, any reason for that?
Do you think we're all women, that would be quite a coincidence on a male dominated board.
Is it meant to be derogatory? "Ha, women aren't clever enough to debate with Ringo".
Is being called a woman just an insult?
Any explanation?
It was a stupid pointless motion. Apart from the handful that are happy with a no deal, most of the erg are just after a proper Brexit. That is not an extreme view.Lancasterclaret wrote:Government defeated because they still think that can trust the ERG. They want a No Deal Brexit and it is beyond comprehension that the majority of moderate Conservative MPs do not realise this and still think they can be negotiated with.
Maybe, taken in isolation. But the rest of his post totally contradicts that bit (I think) - the bit about holiday camps and bees seems to be saying Brexit will result in substantially less immigration, after he'd just said it wouldn't.Tall Paul wrote:To be fair, the first part of the first sentence was kind of an answer...
Why don't you answer the question on my behalf & then we must have the right answer.Greenmile wrote:Maybe, taken in isolation. But the rest of his post totally contradicts that bit (I think) - the bit about holiday camps and bees seems to be saying Brexit will result in substantially less immigration, after he'd just said it wouldn't.
For me, giving two opposite and mutually exclusive answers to the same question isn't answering the question.
Hey RingoRingoMcCartney wrote:It's not me looking a fool marty!
I thought you might have taken a couple of days of to look up what “evidence” means - obviously not!RingoMcCartney wrote:Apparently it is. You claimed I said I had "evidence" that brexit will have a positive impact on the uk. And you know that all along I was arguing that all long I've been saying that all I have is what you have .
No evidence. Just an opinion.
Tall paul seemed satisfied with the answer & even said I kind of answered it, after you made another drama, Tall paul was satisfied as there was no follow up questions, but now you seem to making a big deal of things, if Tall paul is satisfied with answer why can't you be, after all he asked the question initially.Greenmile wrote:Hey Ringo
How many different people have tried to explain to you that you don't know what evidence is?
How many have done the same with Martin?
Why do you think there's such a difference between the two answers? What do you think that tells us about which of you is the fool?
PS - much as I enjoy it when it comes up from time to time, we both know your theory that we're all one person doesn't stand up under any real scrutiny, don't we?
Well, there's two potential "right" answers - either the govt controls the minimum wage and immigration levels (post Brexit), or big business does.Jakubclaret wrote:Why don't you answer the question on my behalf & then we must have the right answer.
There is a follow up question actually, you'll find it at the bottom of the last page:Jakubclaret wrote:Tall paul seemed satisfied with the answer & even said I kind of answered it, after you made another drama, Tall paul was satisfied as there was no follow up questions, but now you seem to making a big deal of things, if Tall paul is satisfied with answer why can't you be, after all he asked the question initially.
Because I'd asked you the same question a while back, and you'd ducked it then, too.Jakubclaret wrote:Tall paul seemed satisfied with the answer & even said I kind of answered it, after you made another drama, Tall paul was satisfied as there was no follow up questions, but now you seem to making a big deal of things, if Tall paul is satisfied with answer why can't you be, after all he asked the question initially.
Why should I bore tall paul going around the houses, he asked a relatively simple question & he received a relatively simple answer, no dramas.Greenmile wrote:Well, there's two potential "right" answers - either the govt controls the minimum wage and immigration levels (post Brexit), or big business does.
I'm saying it's the govt and they could do something about the minimum wage to help low skilled workers now, irrespective of Brexit, or even immigration levels.
If you think it's business - that's fair enough, but it follows logically that they would also dictate to the govt that they have to maintain broadly similar levels of immigration, for the exact same reasons that they are hypothetically suppressing the minimum wage now.
I suppose a third reasonable answer is that, whilst business can dictate minimum wage law to the govt, they won't be able to do the same re immigration law post-Brexit, but you'd need to explain why, really, given that was almost exactly the question Tall Paul asked.
Your answer wasn't simple - it was inherently contradictory.Jakubclaret wrote:Why should I bore tall paul going around the houses, he asked a relatively simple question & he received a relatively simple answer, no dramas.
You seem to be getting prompted now, everything was fine before but nowTall Paul wrote:There is a follow up question actually, you'll find it at the bottom of the last page:
if businesses will dictate the government's immigration policy to maintain their supply of cheap labour, how will Brexit result in reduced immigration and/or an increase in wages for unskilled workers?
but ok then, well as aggi said the other night some businesses will be moving abroad to facilitate the cheap labour & probably as a result of that that will pave the way for other job creation, I explained this the other night when we was talking about the need or not need for electricity, I'd have to go back to be sure but it's definitely been mentioned.I'm not seeing it. Maybe you can explain it.RingoMcCartney wrote:Humour.
Spiral wrote:Rumours floating around that Umunna is resigning the whip. A few journos are hinting at an embargo until 8pm which means if he's doing this he ain't doing it so he can put his feet up and take a holiday.
So your hope is that businesses move abroad, presumably resulting in major job losses, and that will pave the way for job creation? And the initial job losses will naturally reduce the demand for cheap labour and hence immigration? But then won't these new jobs created just lead to businesses demanding more immigration again?Jakubclaret wrote:You seem to be getting prompted now, everything was fine before but now
I'm not being prompted, I haven't posted anything all day and only saw this thread again this evening.Jakubclaret wrote:You seem to be getting prompted now, everything was fine before but now
I often wondered where that meme came from. Thanks for the link.Greenmile wrote:So your hope is that businesses move abroad, presumably resulting in major job losses, and that will pave the way for job creation? And the initial job losses will naturally reduce the demand for cheap labour and hence immigration? But then won't these new jobs created just lead to businesses demanding more immigration again?
The job creation bit is very "underpant gnomes" by the way
Brexit
??
Profit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
Ask greenmile but make sure you remember that you've asked the question & the answer has been answered, I'm sure you will obtain a correct answer, night.Tall Paul wrote:I'm not being prompted, I haven't posted anything all day and only saw this thread again this evening.
I'm still not entirely convinced, how will businesses moving abroad pave the way for job creation? And why will they move abroad if they can keep their supply of cheap labour by dictating policy to the government?
No one will notice if May finally calls it a day.Spiral wrote:Rumours floating around that Umunna is resigning the whip. A few journos are hinting at an embargo until 8pm which means if he's doing this he ain't doing it so he can put his feet up and take a holiday.
It wasn't Greenmile making the claims, it was you. I don't think there is a correct answer.Jakubclaret wrote:Ask greenmile but make sure you remember that you've asked the question & the answer has been answered, I'm sure you will obtain a correct answer, night.
Can't imagine anyone- other than a hard line brexiteer, being happy with her. She's been in the pocket of the ERG and DUP since her election fiasco.summitclaret wrote:You should be very happy with her as she had always done het best to thwart a real Brexit.
Soubry making a few noises, also. "Party is broken/future is bleak", won't answer if she'll be leaving the Tories. If there's anything in all this it's definitely coordinated. I'd be surprised if May resigned tonight but there have been reports of Con. constituency parties being briefed to gear up for GE/renting HQ space etc.nil_desperandum wrote:No one will notice if May finally calls it a day.
What's the odds?
Can't think of anyone else stubborn enough or stupid enough to hang around any longer after yet another humiliation today in the Commons.
What claims? if business goes abroad, other opportunities will arise (domestic energy production) the foreign workers making big businesses wealthy won't be a loss, lots of EU workers save up & send the money back to the respective countries furthering other economies, the expenditure isn't much with shared living arrangements even taking minimum wage into account.Tall Paul wrote:It wasn't Greenmile making the claims, it was you. I don't think there is a correct answer.
Wow - how much ignorance can you fit in one post ?Jakubclaret wrote:What claims? if business goes abroad, other opportunities will arise (domestic energy production) the foreign workers making big businesses wealthy won't be a loss, lots of EU workers save up & send the money back to the respective countries furthering other economies, the expenditure isn't much with shared living arrangements even taking minimum wage into account.
Presumably if Man City drew Barnet at home in the Cup you wouldn’t be able to make a informed prediction on the result as they’ve never played each other before. Meanwhile, the bookies will use the large body of evidence to set the odds, correctly concluding that City are odds on favourite and Barnet the rank outsiders. They can’t predict the result with 100% accuracy, but they use evidence to forecast the most likely result.RingoMcCartney wrote:It's not me looking a fool marty! I'm not the one waiting for time travel to be invented. In order to have any hope of proving me wrong and showing it is actually possible to provide evidence either for or of a future event before its even happened!
You've previously claimed you had evidence that ending free movement of people would not help to prevent people trafficking, exploitation and modern day slavery.
You failed to provide it.
You claimed that the ECHR was part of the EU and even had to be made aware that Russia was a signatory to it!
You claimed that John Bercow could not unilaterally choose what parliament can vote on. He did.
And you've claimed that , what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as EVIDENCE that brexit WILL have a negative impact on the uk.
As we know you can't provide evidence for or from an event that has not happened yet. Only a prediction, belief or opinion.
Marty, you've single handedly proven that if you were to get in the lift of a high rise building.
You'd be wrong on so many levels........
The claim that businesses will move abroad to access cheap labour, despite your other claim that they dictate UK government policy on minimum wage and immigration. Why would they be moving abroad?Jakubclaret wrote:What claims? if business goes abroad, other opportunities will arise (domestic energy production) the foreign workers making big businesses wealthy won't be a loss, lots of EU workers save up & send the money back to the respective countries furthering other economies, the expenditure isn't much with shared living arrangements even taking minimum wage into account.
Would it not be appropriate to ask aggi the first question & when you get a answer, I'm more than willing to answer the second question, it's integral as I will explain later.Tall Paul wrote:The claim that businesses will move abroad to access cheap labour, despite your other claim that they dictate UK government policy on minimum wage and immigration. Why would they be moving abroad?
Also the claim that businesses moving abroad paves the way for job creation. How does that work then?
If you're talking about when aggi said this:Jakubclaret wrote:Would it not be appropriate to ask aggi the first question & when you get a answer, I'm more than willing to answer the second question, it's integral as I will explain later.
there's no claim there that businesses will move abroad to access cheap labour, it was you who appeared to make that connection when you misquoted him here (my bolding for emphasis):aggi wrote:I think Jakub has this right. With all of the businesses starting to announce their possible plans of moving out of the UK if Brexit goes badly then there won't be any big businesses left to dictate to the government. Problem solved.
aggi was merely stating that businesses have started to announce plans to move out of the UK, I don't think there was any reasons given until your posts later.Jakubclaret wrote:You seem to be getting prompted now, everything was fine before but now
What's going on? Greenmile seems to be answering for you & now you are answering for aggi & certain posters are answering for Lancasterclaret, some sort of individual voice would be welcoming.Tall Paul wrote:If you're talking about when aggi said this:
there's no claim there that businesses will move abroad to access cheap labour, it was you who appeared to make that connection when you misquoted him here (my bolding for emphasis):
aggi was merely stating that businesses have started to announce plans to move out of the UK, I don't think there was any reasons given until your posts later.
If you're talking about another post by aggi, please could you provide a quote or post number?
The inference was enough due to what was said previously, if you can't see that or understand that, not my problem, I offered to answer the second question as deemed appropriate to what I inferred. I can validate my reasoning with sound logic, i just wish others could would prevent circular repetition.Tall Paul wrote:I'm not answering for anyone, I just don't see where Aggi said what you're saying he did.
You're the only one who inferred that.Jakubclaret wrote:The inference was enough due to what was said previously, if you can't see that or understand that, not my problem, I offered to answer the second question as deemed appropriate to what I inferred. I can validate my reasoning with sound logic, i just wish others could would prevent circular repetition.
The focus of debate was cheap foreign labour & something along the lines of "jakub could be right businesses will be starting to announce movement of operations abroad" doesnt take a brain surgeon to work out the meaning, glad we cleared that 1 up eventually, no doubt you will bounce back with another warped interpretation of what you actually meant. Circular repetition ensues perpetually.aggi wrote:Aggi didn't say that businesses will move abroad to facilitate cheap labour. Also, if it's not quite clear in this, at times, ludicrous thread the post being quoted was somewhat sarcastic.
"They can’t PREDICT the result with 100% accuracy, but they use evidence to FORECAST the most likely result."martin_p wrote:Presumably if Man City drew Barnet at home in the Cup you wouldn’t be able to make a informed prediction on the result as they’ve never played each other before. Meanwhile, the bookies will use the large body of evidence to set the odds, correctly concluding that City are odds on favourite and Barnet the rank outsiders. They can’t PREDICT the result with 100% accuracy, but they use evidence to FORECAST the most likely result.
Don’t become a bookie Wrongo, you’ll be destitute in days!
Marty believes that past performance guarantees future returns.bfcmartin wrote:So if Barnet win the evidence was useless
Full length mirror may help.aggi wrote:I'm not seeing it.