Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Bit like the upper echelons of the Civil Service in the UK?

Yes, that's a fair comparison.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Evidence can be used to make PREDICTIONS.

Given that we haven't left the EU yet.

All that Remoaners have us just that. Predictions.

Now unless you can provide EVIDENCE based on the last time a country left the EU. All you have, is exactly what I have.

An OPINION.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:15 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:I was never aurguing one way or the other I just didn't like the way you used the words incorrectly.
So the evidence I have is that you were wrong here.

As for wanting evidence if you got your head out of your arse and took a look around you would find loads of it.

If you took your head out of your arse and actually read this thread. You see me time and time again telling Remoaners THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE. It's THEY claiming THEY have EVIDENCE!!

NOT ME.

Do you understand?

It's Remoaners that are mis-using words NOT ME.

No man is so blind than he who refuses to see.......

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:16 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
If it helps you - my comments are EVIDENCE yours are opinion.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:17 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:I was never aurguing one way or the other I just didn't like the way you used the words incorrectly.
So the evidence I have is that you were wrong here.

As for wanting evidence if you got your head out of your arse and took a look around you would find loads of it.

In the above post, who's claiming they have EVIDENCE?

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:22 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you took your head out of your arse and actually read this thread. You see me time and time again telling Remoaners THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE. It's THEY claiming THEY have EVIDENCE!!

NOT ME.

Do you understand?

It's Remoaners that are mis-using words NOT ME.

No man is so blind than he who refuses to see.......

Understand you perfectly. You have a refusal to accept as evidence anything anyone has provided, if it is not inline with your way of thinking.
And your insistance on dismising this in favour of asking for proof and calling it evidence.

Hope you get your sight back soon.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:25 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's Remoaners that are mis-using words NOT ME.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:30 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:Understand you perfectly. You have a refusal to accept as evidence anything anyone has provided, if it is not inline with your way of thinking.
And your insistance on dismising this in favour of asking for proof and calling it evidence.

Hope you get your sight back soon.

For crying out loud.

Remoaners are calling it EVIDENCE. Not me.

Are you pretending you don't understand?

There can be neither PROOF nor EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

We have not left yet.

Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE or PROOF that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk?

EU asset managers are actually considering moving to the UK because of Brexit.

EU fund managers are up in arms over EU rules which would force them to trade dual-listed shares on uncompetitive EU exchanges after Brexit if the Commission refuse to give them access to London after Brexit. The German Investment Funds Association said that “without equivalence granted to UK trading venues, we see the real possibility of EU27 fund managers locating operations in the future in the UK”.

Foreign investment being at record levels.

Real wages outstripping inflation.

Record levels of employment

No I cannot. It's not EVIDENCE.

I only have an OPINION. Based on what may turn out to be short term or reversible business decisions and events.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:32 pm

Tall Paul wrote:

Desperate.

Just desperate

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:49 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:For crying out loud.

They are calling it EVIDENCE!

Are you pretending you don't understand?

There can be neither PROOF nor EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

We have not left yet.

Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE or PROOF that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk.

EU asset managers are actually considering moving to the UK because of Brexit.

EU fund managers are up in arms over EU rules which would force them to trade dual-listed shares on uncompetitive EU exchanges after Brexit if the Commission refuse to give them access to London after Brexit. The German Investment Funds Association said that “without equivalence granted to UK trading venues, we see the real possibility of EU27 fund managers locating operations in the future in the UK”.

Foreign investment being at record levels.

Real wages outstripping inflation.

Record levels of employment

No I cannot.

I only have an OPINION. Based on what may turn out to be short term or reversible business decisions and events.

Look you are using evidence conclusivly.
"Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE or PROOF that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk. "
The answer to that question is no. But EVIDENCE is NOT conclusive.
Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE that brexit MAYhave a POSITIVE impact on the uk.
The answer is YES.

But I think you know this and like playing a game

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:00 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi I T, have you ever worked with any EU staff? Have you ever tried to work with them or debate with them on some of their draft directives?

My experience, EU staff can have a great impact on the shape/content of a lot of our laws.

They don't decide whether those laws pass or not. What greater influence do they have on EU laws than Tory staffers on UK laws?

It's just another bullshit argument against the EU. Arguing against something that happens in the EU government as bad when that exact same thing happens in the UK government with absolutely no objection.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:They don't decide whether those laws pass or not. What greater influence do they have on EU laws than Tory staffers on UK laws?

It's just another bullshit argument against the EU. Arguing against something that happens in the EU government as bad when that exact same thing happens in the UK government with absolutely no objection.

Massive difference. EU staff are comparable to UK senior civil servants.

No comparison to political party staff.

I'm not stating this as "argument against the EU."

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:22 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Massive difference. EU staff are comparable to UK senior civil servants.

No comparison to political party staff.

I'm not stating this as "argument against the EU."

I was referring to tory staffers in government. So i guess you could say i was referring to UK senior civil servants.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:23 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:Look you are using evidence conclusivly.
"Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE or PROOF that brexit will have a POSITIVE impact on the uk. "
The answer to that question is no. But EVIDENCE is NOT conclusive.
Can I point to the following as EVIDENCE that brexit MAYhave a POSITIVE impact on the uk.
The answer is YES.

But I think you know this and like playing a game

And I know, you know, I've never claimed I have evidence.

But,

1 Quote a post where I say I have evidence re brexit.

2. I know you're claiming "I was never arguing one way or the other". However, rather than remaining impartial. Just for one post, point to something as EVIDENCE that brexit will have a positive or negative impact on the uk, as an example to back up your argument.

Evidence or proof . It doesn't matter.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:26 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:
EU asset managers are actually considering moving to the UK because of Brexit.

EU fund managers are up in arms over EU rules which would force them to trade dual-listed shares on uncompetitive EU exchanges after Brexit if the Commission refuse to give them access to London after Brexit. The German Investment Funds Association said that “without equivalence granted to UK trading venues, we see the real possibility of EU27 fund managers locating operations in the future in the UK”.

For those that are interested, Ringo is right on EU asset managers moving to UK.

But, please guys, all of you, remainers just as much as leavers, let's drop this zero sum argument about "evidence.",

It's no better than "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" arguments that used to go on in primary school.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Am i deflecting anything? Is my post in response to someone who has made a criticism and i'm choosing not to respond to that criticism by pointing to someone else?

No.

Nice try though. Not really. It's was dumb. But i'm all about positivity right now and so you get a participation award.

I thought you'd say that. But it was.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I was referring to tory staffers in government. So i guess you could say i was referring to UK senior civil servants.

Except we have a neutral civil service, so no you weren't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:30 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Except we have a neutral civil service, so no you weren't.

OK so take away "Tory" then. Or replace it with "Tory's"

******* hell.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:31 pm

thatdberight wrote:I thought you'd say that. But it was.

No, it wasn't. And the reason you thought i'd say that is because you knew you were wrong, you knew why you were wrong, and yet you continued to post your dumb wrong post.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:39 pm

Paul Waine wrote:For those that are interested, Ringo is right on EU asset managers moving to UK.

But, please guys, all of you, remainers just as much as leavers, let's drop this zero sum argument about "evidence.",

It's no better than "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" arguments that used to go on in primary school.

Bit patronising...but hey ho.

The main debate has been about evidence to support an opinion. If you agree with Wrongo on that then you are as deluded as him.

If EU asset managers are moving to UK directly in anticipation of Brexit then that could be classified as evidence to support an opinion...opinion on what yet i’m unsure.

If people have provided evidence of companies that have got rid of jobs in anticipation of Brexit then that is also evidence to support their opinion that Brexit might not be good for jobs in the UK.

Whether in years to come their will be a net gain or loss in jobs, the economy or many other metrics nobody knows.

In truth it’s an argument I doubt anybody will ever be able to prove from either side in the future as other factors in the world economy are likely to cloud most things - and the UK will have moved on to bickering about something else.

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:49 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:And I know, you know, I've never claimed I have evidence.

But,

1 Quote a post where I say I have evidence re brexit.

2. I know you're claiming "I was never arguing one way or the other". However, rather than remaining impartial. Just for one post, point to something as EVIDENCE that brexit will have a positive or negative impact on the uk, as an example to back up your argument.

Evidence or proof . It doesn't matter.

1. I never said you did, I said you are asking people to provide conclsive evidence, which is proof, which they can't.
But they can provide evidence to their argument and you dismiss this.

2. I have used your example in a positive way as using it as evidence, I think that was a good exmaple no?

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:52 pm

i'd like to congratulate ringo's daughter again on her 1st class degree. the longer this thread goes on the more excellent an achievement it appears.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:55 pm

TVC15 wrote:Bit patronising...but hey ho.

The main debate has been about evidence to support an opinion. If you agree with Wrongo on that then you are as deluded as him.

If EU asset managers are moving to UK directly in anticipation of Brexit then that could be classified as evidence to support an opinion...opinion on what yet i’m unsure.

If people have provided evidence of companies that have got rid of jobs in anticipation of Brexit then that is also evidence to support their opinion that Brexit might not be good for jobs in the UK.

Whether in years to come their will be a net gain or loss in jobs, the economy or many other metrics nobody knows.

In truth it’s an argument I doubt anybody will ever be able to prove from either side in the future as other factors in the world economy are likely to cloud most things - and the UK will have moved on to bickering about something else.

This is what I've been saying all along.

You can point to events that are the basis of an OPINION that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

But in themselves are not EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

Either side pointing to what may turn out to be short term or reversible business decisions or events are being premature.

Throughout this thread and the whole post referendum debate I have never claimed I have evidence.

Just an opinion.

We have not left yet. And we have neither the privilege of perspective that the passage of time gives. Nor do we have the benefit of HINDSIGHT.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:00 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:1. I never said you did, I said you are asking people to provide conclsive evidence, which is proof, which they can't.
But they can provide evidence to their argument and you dismiss this.

2. I have used your example in a positive way as using it as evidence, I think that was a good exmaple no?

1 I'm only asking posters to provide what THEY claimed to have. So far none have. Just short term or reversible business decisions or events.

2. No. Because Brexiteers claiming it was EVIDENCE would be wrong. They'd only have an opinion that could well be proven wrong, given the passage of time. Calling it evidence would have proved to be just as premature as Remoaners pointing to short term negativity.

We have not left let.

No country previously has.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:15 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:This is what I've been saying all along.

You can point to events that are the basis of an OPINION that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

But in themselves are not EVIDENCE that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk.

Either side pointing to what may turn out to be short term or reversible business decisions or events are being premature.

Throughout this thread and the whole post referendum debate I have never claimed I have evidence.

Just an opinion.

We have not left yet. And we have neither the privilege of perspective that the passage of time gives. Nor do we have the benefit of HINDSIGHT.

Yawn...Yawn

It`s not what you have been saying all along.

Has anybody on this thread said they know for sure what will happen post Brexit ? If they have feel free to point it out.

They have said that you can have evidence to support an opinion about what might happen.

Whether a company decides to reverse a decision on job losses is completely irrelevant until they announce they are going to do it. Right now if the only action they have taken is to cut jobs then that is evidence to support an opinion that Brexit might lead to a net loss in jobs. This evidence is far more credible than a set of forecasts based on assumptions and whatever else. It`s also more credible than somebody saying Brexit will have a positive impact on jobs without producing any evidence that companies have announced they will increase their workforce or have already increased their workforce in anticipation of Brexit.

I can`t believe that we are still debating this.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:22 pm

1.10 years to stop irreversible climate change.

2.Insects to die out in a 100 years.

3.China and India the world's biggest polluters.

4.The EU hoping to be the 4th Reich of Eurasia (Baku Europa League Final 2019).

5.An EU so corrupt and irresponsible that it would sanction Heathrow H.M. Customs and Passport Control/ Gatwick Irish Backstop (effectively)

6. As an island developed nation, we have a unique position to reverse trends, it's an easier model of civilization to comprehend than a continental land mass.

7. Brexit is THE Only chance we have of saving the planet.

8. It offers the opportunity to rationalize material production.

9. No to all trade deals and also exit the Commonwealth.

10. No more Triumph motorcycles for plastic trinkets.

11. We are in a very dangerous position as a species because we live in the Age of Conceit. The agri-peasant nihilists from Asia compound the problem, anti-materialist philosophies and religion etc.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:26 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:i'd like to congratulate ringo's daughter again on her 1st class degree. the longer this thread goes on the more excellent an achievement it appears.

Ah, but just a minute. We only have Ringo's word for this. Do we accept this as evidence or proof of her achievement. He's got me all confused!
What's your opinion?

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:29 pm

You're over, Nil. You're lost in personal Ad Hominem sh*t.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:44 pm

Pstotto wrote:You're over, Nil. You're lost in personal Ad Hominem sh*t.

No "ad hominem ***"* from me there. Just joining in the fun, because surely no one is taking this "evidence" debate seriously??

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:59 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:CombatClaret wrote "Just like how in a trial a special witness can be called to give their expert OPINION to add to the BODY OF EVIDENCE."
You been to see the trial judge and ask him to sentence somebody for murder based on a witness statement which was added to form the BODY OF EVIDENCE.
BEFORE THE MURDER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE YET?

The trial scenario was just to show an expert OPINION can also be EVIDENCE regardless of if it effects the matters of the past or future.

Lets take a future scenario Sainsburys and ASDA want to merge. The competition commission must weight up the projected DATA and may consult expert OPINIONS to create a BODY OF EVIDENCE to rule on a matter which would take place in the FUTURE.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:04 pm

CombatClaret wrote:The trial scenario was just to show an expert OPINION can also be EVIDENCE regardless of if it effects the matters of the past or future.

Lets take a future scenario Sainsburys and ASDA want to merge. The competition commission must weight up the projected DATA and may consult expert OPINIONS to create a BODY OF EVIDENCE to rule on a matter which would take place in the FUTURE.

They will be able to look at a whole plethora of PREVIOUS mergers.

Nobody has previously left the EU........

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:18 pm

TVC15 wrote:As much as it irks me to say so Wrongo is kind of right in what he says - in so much at the moment it is OPINIONS about what will happen post Brexit.

This is your good self agreeing with me.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:19 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:They will be able to look at a whole plethora of PREVIOUS mergers.
Nobody has previously left the EU........

Straw man Diversion. The point was that expert OPINION can be EVIDENCE.

The world is full of firsts, this doesn't change the above definition. But well done on derailing the argument again with this incorrect semantic argument.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:20 pm

TVC15 wrote:Yawn...Yawn

It`s not what you have been saying all along.

Has anybody on this thread said they know for sure what will happen post Brexit ? If they have feel free to point it out.

They have said that you can have evidence to support an opinion about what might happen.

Whether a company decides to reverse a decision on job losses is completely irrelevant until they announce they are going to do it. Right now if the only action they have taken is to cut jobs then that is evidence to support an opinion that Brexit might lead to a net loss in jobs. This evidence is far more credible than a set of forecasts based on assumptions and whatever else. It`s also more credible than somebody saying Brexit will have a positive impact on jobs without producing any evidence that companies have announced they will increase their workforce or have already increased their workforce in anticipation of Brexit.

I can`t believe that we are still debating this.

It is what I've being saying all along.

Given that the UK has not left the European Union yet, there can only be predictions, forecasts and OPINION. That it will have either a negative or positive impact on the uk.

No evidence. As Ceaseless Remoaners claim. Just OPINION

And as can be seen from the above quote you previously agreed with me!

If Carlsberg did U-turns. ......

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:23 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Straw man Diversion. The point was that expert OPINION can be EVIDENCE.

The world is full of firsts, this doesn't change the above definition. But well done on derailing the argument again with this incorrect semantic argument.

The point is evidence can only be provided from an event that has happened.

What previous country leaving the EU? can form the basis of evidence to support an opinion?

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:27 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The point is evidence can only be provided from an event that has happened.

What previous country leaving the EU? can form the basis of evidence to support an opinion?

You're trying to start the circle again and I'm not biting this time. Countless people have told you here you are wrong on this point of definition.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:30 pm

There is evidence Ringo will continue backing himself into a corner regarding the meaning of the word evidence onto page 40 of this thread.

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:35 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote: 2. No. Because Brexiteers claiming it was EVIDENCE would be wrong

You keep using Evidence as conclusive. Evidence can be wrong especially when you have proof.
It is evidence to support a theory or opinion or judgement, it doesn't mean it's right.
In the future looking back of course it can be wrong.
But that doesn't negate it today as being evidence.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:51 pm

TVC15 wrote:You really are a massive pr-ick Wrongo - and yes I am fully aware I am resorting to personal abuse but i’m not sure what is left.

I agreed with you in terms of the fact that nobody can predict the outcome post Brexit and that can only be an opinion. I have already asked you to point out who on this thread is saying anything but the fact that what happens post Brexit can only be an opinion. As usual you choose to ignore that.

Where all of us on this thread disagree with you is that an opinion can be based on evidence.

The fact that you continue to argue against that and bullsh-it that people are saying otherwise is embarrassing. I seriously think you have some kind of learning difficulties.

Oh dear , once you agreed with me. Now you've met yourself coming backwards.

Less the cool Thin White Duke and more The Laughing Gnome.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:57 pm

LeuvenClaret wrote:You keep using Evidence as conclusive. Evidence can be wrong especially when you have proof.
It is evidence to support a theory or opinion or judgement, it doesn't mean it's right.
In the future looking back of course it can be wrong.
But that doesn't negate it today as being evidence.

As mentioned previously. If 2 people who have polar opposite stances, can have differing opinions about the same events or business that one chooses to call "EVIDENCE". Only one can ultimately be proven right. Given time, perspective and hindsight.

I have no evidence. Just an opinion that Brexit will have a positive impact on the U.K.

You only have either an opinion, forcast or prediction.

Unless that is, you'd like to provide EVIDENCE or PROOF.

As yet you've provided the square root of sod all.......

Any luck with time travel?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:07 pm

CombatClaret wrote:You're trying to start the circle again and I'm not biting this time. Countless people have told you here you are wrong on this point of definition.

Is it a coincidence, do you think , that the ones saying I'm wrong are all, to a man, remain voters. And what lays behind your refusal to accept what I'm saying is the supremely arrogant belief that Remoaners have evidence while, in their lofty view, Brexiteers only have belief.

And it really grinds when it's pointed out to you.

In the I'm absolutely comfortable in knowing that both Brexiteers and Remoaners alike only have opinions.

We have not left the European Union yet. Only in years to come will we be able to provide evidence to show it had a negative or positive impact on the uk.

Till then you'll dress supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, assumptions, projections, scenarios given varying criteria, predictions, assumptions and forecasts, up as evidence.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:08 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Oh dear , once you agreed with me. Now you've met yourself coming backwards.

Less the cool Thin White Duke and more The Laughing Gnome.

It’s a pity he did not write a song called “lying belmtard” as that would have been perfect for you.

I agreed with you on the point that nobody is diasagreeing with you....whereas you are the only f-ucktard who is saying you cannot base an opinion on evidence.

Eh but you carry on lying - it’s clearly how you get your kicks you weirdo

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:11 pm

Wrongo now poking people with a stick to get them to play his game and ride on his false semantic merry-go-round again.

LeuvenClaret · Post by **LeuvenClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:12 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:As mentioned previously. If 2 people who have polar opposite stances, can have differing opinions about the same events or business that one chooses to call "EVIDENCE". Only one can ultimately be proven right. Given time, perspective and hindsight.

I have no evidence. Just an opinion that Brexit will have a positive impact on the U.K.

You only have either an opinion, forcast or prediction.

Unless that is, you'd like to provide EVIDENCE or PROOF.

As yet you've provided the square root of sod all.......

Any luck with time travel?

So opinions can't be based on evidence is that your point? go look that up on wiki you may learn something.
Why would I need time travel to provide any evidence, I would only need it for proof?

All we have proven so far is you don't understand the concept of evidence, opinion based eveidence and unstanding proof.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:12 pm

TVC15 wrote:You really are a massive pr-ick Wrongo - and yes I am fully aware I am resorting to personal abuse but i’m not sure what is left.

I agreed with you in terms of the fact that nobody can predict the outcome post Brexit and that can only be an opinion. I have already asked you to point out who on this thread is saying anything but the fact that what happens post Brexit can only be an opinion. As usual you choose to ignore that.

Where all of us on this thread disagree with you is that an opinion can be based on evidence.

The fact that you continue to argue against that and bullsh-it that people are saying otherwise is embarrassing. I seriously think you have some kind of learning difficulties.

I'm telling you, they can't answer questions. They can't support their arguments with facts or examples of what they accuse. It's amazing that have no problem with accusing other members of things and not have to support it with evidence or even an explanation.

They're (anti-)intellectual cowards.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:13 pm

I honestly wish i could see into the future knowing what will happen 100%, like some people on here I'd sure as hell would have not made any mistakes throughout the course of a lifetime. Credit where credits due it's quite a achievement.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:18 pm

See this **** here? This guy KNOWS no one is saying that they know what's going to happen, and yet he posts this bullshit anyway. Because he doesn't value the debate.

The best way to engage is to not engage with the person, only engage with the things they say and completely talk past them. Debunk the dumb **** they post, but don't engage them in a discussion they're not remotely interested in having in good faith.

Jakubclaret wrote:I honestly wish i could see into the future knowing what will happen 100%, like some people on here I'd sure as hell would have not made any mistakes throughout the course of a lifetime. Credit where credits due it's quite a achievement.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:22 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:See this **** here? This guy KNOWS no one is saying that they know what's going to happen, and yet he posts this bullshit anyway. Because he doesn't values the debate.

The best way to engage is to not engage with the person, only engage with the things they say and completely talk past them. Debunk the dumb **** they post, but don't engage them in a discussion they're not remotely interested in having in good faith.

From what i gather similar things have been levied your way, ringos a good egg you'd be better off listening to the fella.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:31 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:From what i gather similar things have been levied your way, ringos a good egg you'd be better off listening to the fella.

Not when his argument is with the Oxford English Dictionary.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:38 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:From what i gather similar things have been levied your way, ringos a good egg you'd be better off listening to the fella.

Jakub & Wrongo

The new dumb and dumber