More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting enough (just to divert from the Ringo "I'm completely unable to admit I might be wrong" thread)

There was a animated discussion in the cabinet during Dunkirk and the fall of france about the possibility of seeking some sort of terms, with the arguments for that being led by Lord Halifax, the foreign secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_ ... net_crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quoonbeatz]

Just a straight forward answer please.

2 leave

1 remain

1 abstain.


Did more people agree with the decision to leave or Remain.

There's a clue in the fact that we left the room.

I know that you know it's very difficult for you to admit it.

But try your best. You simply can't can you.

sorry to leave you hanging like that but i'd finished work for the day.

anyway, its a very simple answer that even a simple mind like yours might understand if it tries very hard.

if you were having a majority vote, you shouldn't have left the room as neither side got 3 votes. out of 4 people, 2 isn't a majority, that is a simple fact. leave got more votes but they didn't get a majority

consequently, if we go right back to your posts that started all this:

And I don't know where you sit. And I'm assuming that when I say the next home game for you will be Turf Moor! Then if the people sat near you are from Burnley, then given two thirds of Burnleyites voted to Leave, they'd agree with me. Your not in s special Remoaner section ate you!?

But surely if you walked down a random street in Burnley. Given that 66% (I think) of Burnleyites voted to Leave. Then 2 out of every 3 would agree with me? Or are you going to try and use statistics to try and go against common sense?

Next you'll be saying , "I know that two thirds of Burnley folk voted Leave. But the majority agree with my viewpoint"

I innocently assumed you agree with me that those attending the Turf generally represented the town as a whole. And cos of that and the way the town voted in the referendum, you'd admit that as the majority of the town voted Leave, then the majority would agree with me.

Let me make it as straight forward as possible. Given the way that Burnley voted. Would the majority of Burnleyites agree with my view or yours?

in the eu referendum in burnley 44% voted to leave, 22% voted to remain and 33% didn't vote. neither side gets to claim that 33% so there isn't a majority. so if you asked those around you at the turf or walked down a street in burnley and asked if people agreed with you, then there's more chance you'd meet someone who didn't agree or didn't know, than who agreed. there's also more chance that you meet someone who agreed or didn't know, than who disagreed.

either way, its an absolute, irrevocable fact that the majority of 'burnley folk/burnleyites' don't agree with you and the same goes for remain.

its been fun helping you make a complete tit of yourself (yet again) over this thread but if you still don't get such basic stuff now, you never will, so i'll leave you to it.

cheerio!

[martin_p]

Because the 2 to 1 and the 1 abstention is very roughly the same numbers for how those who were eligible to vote in Burnley. And the 10 or so Remoaners know that.

Ringo's mathematical genius has beaten me again. You're right, 2 is 'roughly the same number' as 28,854.

[android]

So quoonbeatz says its an "absolute, irrevocable fact that the majority of burnleyites don't agree...".

Not true. For all we know all of the 33% who didn't vote were intending to vote leave but just didn't make it to the polling booth.

Upthebeehole, martin p and others are going to be all over you for your error.

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh ffs man!

[android]

Fair point well made Lancaster!

Let it go Ringo. Don't do to quoonbeatz what they did to you! Rise above it.

Really am going to get on with my life now.

[Lancasterclaret]

There is a good chance that Ringogate could take over this thread!

[Caballo]

its an absolute, irrevocable fact

It's not, you're making the assumption that the only reason for not voting was not having an opinion.

[Lancasterclaret]

- *Think the fire is dying down now sarge"

- "can't have that! quick, chuck some more petrol on it"

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo's mathematical genius has beaten me again. You're right, 2 is 'roughly the same number' as 28,854.

2 to 1 is roughly the same as 28000 to 14000.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo's mathematical genius has beaten me again. You're right, 2 is 'roughly the same number' as 28,854.

2 to 1 is roughly the same as 28000 to 14000.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, bless.
As I've said, I had no interest in the Burnley Brexit vote nor what constitutes a "majority" or not. I wouldn't worry too much about being criticised, I don't think folks are being personal - they're just challenging your view. If you're going to go all snowflakey each time you're shown up, perhaps you can't give as good as you get............Nobody else on here whinges about being picked on.

Anyway, the Kerr issue does intrigue me. On the eve of the Battle of Britain, you claimed quite specifically, that Kerr attempted to appease Hitler and was a "surrender monkey". Quite a slur to make bearing in mind that pivotal time in our history.
Under normal circumstances, evidence would be supplied and all would be well.
You, however, somehow don't feel "obliged" to support your accusation of this man's behaviour - an accusation not an opinion - and I'm not surprised because you're were either lying or didn't have a clue about his real role in WW2 at that time.
That's about it, really.

Pack like and lippy and giving as good as I get is saying I'm being picked on.

Kerr? Do a new thread fill ya boots on there.

[RingoMcCartney]

So that is what you meant?

Why didn’t you just say so instead of banging on about 4 people in a room and hurling insults?

To answer your question - it’s the only interpretation of what you said that makes sense and is correct but (and this is important) it’s not what you actually said.

You can’t say something that’s wrong, defend it multiple times in an aggressive insulting manner, and then say “well of course I meant this other thing, and it’s your fault for not realising that.”

This isn’t pedantry. It’s asking you to say what you mean, and mean what you say.

You knew what I meant.

They did.

But apparently only you have the ability to interpret. Why is that you still haven't suggested why that could be?

If I said as a Leaver in Burnley more people share my view. Any grown up mature person, given the 66 33 split would agree.

It's really is as simple as that.

[RingoMcCartney]

sorry to leave you hanging like that but i'd finished work for the day.

anyway, its a very simple answer that even a simple mind like yours might understand if it tries very hard.

if you were having a majority vote, you shouldn't have left the room as neither side got 3 votes. out of 4 people, 2 isn't a majority, that is a simple fact. leave got more votes but they didn't get a majority

consequently, if we go right back to your posts that started all this:







in the eu referendum in burnley 44% voted to leave, 22% voted to remain and 33% didn't vote. neither side gets to claim that 33% so there isn't a majority. so if you asked those around you at the turf or walked down a street in burnley and asked if people agreed with you, then there's more chance you'd meet someone who didn't agree or didn't know, than who agreed. there's also more chance that you meet someone who agreed or didn't know, than who disagreed.

either way, its an absolute, irrevocable fact that the majority of 'burnley folk/burnleyites' don't agree with you and the same goes for remain.

its been fun helping you make a complete tit of yourself (yet again) over this thread but if you still don't get such basic stuff now, you never will, so i'll leave you to it.

cheerio!

21000 no opinion either way

28000 agree

14000 disagree.

You're the tit. Toodle pip.

[RingoMcCartney]

It's not, you're making the assumption that the only reason for not voting was not having an opinion.

Well done for common sense fella.

[RingoMcCartney]

- *Think the fire is dying down now sarge"

- "can't have that! quick, chuck some more petrol on it"

Don't worry lancs. I will have the last laugh. I can absolutely guarantee you that. And you can quote me on It!

[RingoMcCartney]

Just to be clear Ringo, the reason I've "fallen silent" is because I said I was giving up on trying to make you see where you went wrong and, unlike you, when I say I'm doing something I actually do it.

The error isn't mine. The fake misunderstanding and childish refusal to just accept what I was saying on face value, as discussed with Greenmile regards you and your chums lack of ability to interpret with bias.

[Tall Paul]

The error isn't mine. The fake misunderstanding and childish refusal to just accept what I was saying on face value, as discussed with Greenmile regards you and your chums lack of ability to interpret with bias.

But the error was yours, as Greenmile said (and I agree with him, FWIW). I'm still not sure that you see that, but as I said, I've given up on it.

[quoonbeatz]

So quoonbeatz says its an "absolute, irrevocable fact that the majority of burnleyites don't agree...".

Not true. For all we know all of the 33% who didn't vote were intending to vote leave but just didn't make it to the polling booth.

Upthebeehole, martin p and others are going to be all over you for your error.

that's a good point and i concede i've worded that badly, but you haven't quoted the full sentence, where i clearly stated that the same applied to remain. what i was saying is neither side can claim that the majority of people in burnley agree with them, whereas ringo is desperate to claim that the majority agree with him.

simple as that. its a basic error that he can't admit. fair play to him keep coming back for more after being so thoroughly rinsed though, he makes good sport!

[quoonbeatz]

21000 no opinion either way

28000 agree

14000 disagree.

You're the tit. Toodle pip.

still struggling with majorities i see.

[RingoMcCartney]

But the error was yours, as Greenmile said (and I agree with him, FWIW). I'm still not sure that you see that, but as I said, I've given up on it.

My error was this.

When I said, as a Leaver more people in Burnley agree with me ( that might not be the EXACT number of words and letters but I'm sure as a paid up member of the pedantry police you'll be able to provide a full transcript to put under your microscope ) I made the assumption that what is said was being read by fair minded rational people. That was my error.

And given the vote in Burnley. Trying to disagree using semantics, and using certain percentages, while conveniently ignoring the percentages for the flip side if the same equation. Is beyond parody. It really is.

[RingoMcCartney]

still struggling with majorities i see.

No. Are you struggling with life?

Genuine question. Do you suffer from severe dyscalculia?

[Sidney1st]

So the majority of those who voted went with Leave and somehow the majority isn't on the side of Ringo?

It isn't his fault if 21k didn't vote.
He can only use the majority that did, just like the overall result of the referendum.

[RingoMcCartney]

So quoonbeatz says its an "absolute, irrevocable fact that the majority of burnleyites don't agree...".

Not true. For all we know all of the 33% who didn't vote were intending to vote leave but just didn't make it to the polling booth.

Upthebeehole, martin p and others are going to be all over you for your error.

What these jokers are doing is saying that the 21000 people that have no opinion either way. Don't agree with me. I'm saying they neither agree nor disagree. Neither side of this puerile argument can therefore count them. But of the that do have an opinion agree , by a ratio of 2 to 1, with me.

It's a very simple concept. But apparently just too simple for around 10 bewildered Remoaners.

[quoonbeatz]

My error was this.

When I said, as a Leaver more people in Burnley agree with me ( that might not be the EXACT number of words and letters but I'm sure as a paid up member of the pedantry police you'll be able to provide a full transcript to put under your microscope ) I made the assumption that what is said was being read by fair minded rational people. That was my error.

And given the vote in Burnley. Trying to disagree using semantics, and using certain percentages, while conveniently ignoring the percentages for the flip side if the same equation. Is beyond parody. It really is.

brilliant.

your error was saying something completely wrong and repeating it ad infinitum, when corrected.

i'd say everyone on this thread is fair-minded and rational and i'd even include you in that, to an extent.

everyone knows the referendum result in burnley, the numbers, percentages etc are all widely available. and almost everyone else can interpret them correctly, in a fair and honest way. except you.

as i say, its good sport although a little tedious now so i'll leave you to it.

[RingoMcCartney]

So the majority of those who voted went with Leave and somehow the majority isn't on the side of Ringo?

It isn't his fault if 21k didn't vote.
He can only use the majority that did, just like the overall result of the referendum.

There speaks the voice of reason.

Expect semantics, technicalities, bizarre references to seating arrangements from nil desperandum, and shear pigheaded refusal to take the "it's Ringo therefore I cannot possibly call a spade a spade" blinkers off.

[UpTheBeehole]

Maybe it's 10 remainers bewildered at your stubborn thickness

[quoonbeatz]

So the majority of those who voted went with Leave and somehow the majority isn't on the side of Ringo?

It isn't his fault if 21k didn't vote.
He can only use the majority that did, just like the overall result of the referendum.

literally nobody has suggested otherwise, sid.

[RingoMcCartney]

brilliant.

your error was saying something completely wrong and repeating it ad infinitum, when corrected.

i'd say everyone on this thread is fair-minded and rational and i'd even include you in that, to an extent.

everyone knows the referendum result in burnley, the numbers, percentages etc are all widely available. and almost everyone else can interpret them correctly, in a fair and honest way. except you.

as i say, its good sport although a little tedious now so i'll leave you to it.

Hang on , am I getting a bit of common sense backing now and your feeling a bit less emboldened!?

Everybody does know the result. Like a stopped clock you're right! And a blind man on a galloping horse, as long as he's not one of the 10 or so Remoaners, can see that more people share my view.

[Lancasterclaret]

its 2029, and on UTC the "is ringo wrong" thread is still going as the world collapses into nuclear ruin.

[RingoMcCartney]

literally nobody has suggested otherwise, sid.

Congratulations! I know it's early but you've won bullsh1ter of the day!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

Maybe it's 10 remainers bewildered at your common sense as they look on enviously

Sorted for you.

By the way. You mentioned you were in the office yesterday. But haven't made it in today.

I've been asked to pass on a message to you. It goes like this-

"It's Pauline, Mickey love. Just making sure you're alright"

Hope that makes sense.......

[RingoMcCartney]

its 2029, and on UTC the "is ringo wrong" thread is still going as the world collapses into nuclear ruin.

Nice one Lancs!

[Sidney1st]

literally nobody has suggested otherwise, sid.

From browsing the thread that appears to be the issue though.

I'm not paying full attention to it today, but there appears to be lots of circling about this point.

Majority voted leave, minority didn't with a group who didn't vote either way.

Elections have been decided in such a manner.
Unions go on strike in the same manner.

[UpTheBeehole]

It's a good job you're self-employed, because no bugger else would employ someone as plain thick as you Ringo.

How do you even get on in life?

Do you create arguments when receiving your change in a shop due to your complete lack of mathematical skills?

[martin_p]

2 to 1 is roughly the same as 28000 to 14000.

That’s a ratio not a number. You’re not very good at saying what you mean are you.

[martin_p]

What these jokers are doing is saying that the 21000 people that have no opinion either way. Don't agree with me. I'm saying they neither agree nor disagree.

So the jokers are saying 21000 don’t agree with you and you’re saying 21000 don’t agree with you either (nor disagree).

You’re saying exactly the same thing you dolt!!

[RingoMcCartney]

That’s a ratio not a number. You’re not very good at saying what you mean are you.

Where as understanding is your Achilles Heel.

[RingoMcCartney]

So the jokers are saying 21000 don’t agree with you and you’re saying 21000 don’t agree with you either (nor disagree).

You’re saying exactly the same thing you dolt!!

Yes! Penny dropped yet?

Think about what you've said clown. Look what you put in brackets at the end of your sentence.

[UpTheBeehole]

Josh

Let's go back to primary school maths.

Please could you confirm which numbers are greater?

Is 28,854 greater than 42,972?

Is 28,854 greater than 32,229?

is 44.76 greater than 66.66?

Ringo please could you let me know your answers to the above?

Which numbers are greater?

[randomclaret2]

You dont add the dont knows or dont votes to your preferred answer or candidate. And you have the cheek and arrogance to call people thick

[RingoMcCartney]

Meanwhile, more post brexit referendum good news!!!

Billion pound trade deal secured with China!!

Reasons to be cheerful! Maybe not for the Remoaners!

[UpTheBeehole]

You dont add the dont knows or dont votes to your preferred answer or candidate. And you have the cheek and arrogance to call people thick

That's addressed to Ringo yes?

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo please could you let me know your answers to the above?

Which numbers are greater?

No problem. I'm rational and have common sense

28,854 is less than 42,972

28,854 is less than 32,229

44.76 is than 66.66

Now try and prove you can be rational and balanced

Please supply the figures and their relative percentages when you add those that didn't vote to those that voted Remain.

Shouldn't take you too long and I think you may be pleasantly surprised.

Pauline says you can get the pens out if you run out of toes....

[Sidney1st]

That's addressed to Ringo yes?

I'm going to say it's aimed at you.

The majority of those who voted went with Leave.

That's all that really matters in any vote.

[UpTheBeehole]

I'm going to say it's aimed at you.

The majority of those who voted went with Leave.

That's all that really matters in any vote.

Yet Ringo is the one saying the majority of Burnleyites would agree with him.

The actual statistics show that the number of Burnleyites eligible to vote, lets call them 'the electorate', was 64,458.

The number of Burnleyites who did agree with Ringo was 28,854 (this figure includes Ringo)

So for the majority of Burnleyites to agree with Ringo, he needs over 32,229 to have voted the same as he did.

28,853 people agreed with Ringo.

Ringo is wrong to say that the majority of people in Burnley would agree with him.

It's pretty f*cking simple.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm going to say it's aimed at you.

The majority of those who voted went with Leave.

That's all that really matters in any vote.

It really isn't.
I've been to many meetings when (e.g.) 6 have voted for a motion, 5 have voted for an amendment, and (e.g.) 6 have abstained.
The result generally proposed by the Chairman / woman - (usually) - we'll have to look at this again, or compromise in some way, because clearly there are insufficient people to support either proposal.
It is very unusual in my experience to plough on regardless when a proposal is only actually backed by about a third of those involved.

[Sidney1st]

The majority of those who voted went with Leave, so he can say the majority agree with him..

Yes it's pretty simple, but you're not interested in what he's saying, you've yet again made a personal dig at someone about their job and you just want to argue the toss over something stupid.

Ringo can make the sweeping statement that the majority agree with him simply because the majority of those who voted want out.

That's how it works, if you don't like it, tough.

[Sidney1st]

It really isn't.
I've been to many meetings when (e.g.) 6 have voted for a motion, 5 have voted for an amendment, and (e.g.) 6 have abstained.
The result generally proposed by the Chairman / woman - (usually) - we'll have to look at this again, or compromise in some way, because clearly there are insufficient people to support either proposal.
It is very unusual in my experience to plough on regardless when a proposal is only actually backed by about a third of those involved.

I'll need to check but don't Unions go on strike based on those who vote even if it isn't the majority of the party?

So when the majority of those who voted in Burnley went with leave, what's different?
There wasn't an abstain option, it was in or out.
If the non voters were that bothered they would've voted..

[UpTheBeehole]

If the non voters were that bothered they would've voted..

And this brings us round to where you chipped in.

randomclaret2 was saying that you can't possibly include the abstainers either way, yet this is EXACTLY what Ringo is doing by saying the majority of Burnleyites agree with him.

They don't, as my previous post shows