Evidence of General Election Voting Fraud
Discussion
Turbotbloke said:
First we'll clear out the garbage (by removing subordinate clauses) and here's what I said:
"It's only lefties/students commit voter fraud. Conservative types (little c) wouldn't dream of doing such a thing."
No, that’s really not what you said. Why lie, when it’s easy to be proven wrong?"It's only lefties/students commit voter fraud. Conservative types (little c) wouldn't dream of doing such a thing."
Turbotbloke said:
To which you replied:
"I don't think that's true."
It's the that's which caused your difficulty. Because you failed to refer clearly to my original statements in your reply, it's ambiguous as to what you're disagreeing with.
I think it was your difficulty - other people had no problems."I don't think that's true."
It's the that's which caused your difficulty. Because you failed to refer clearly to my original statements in your reply, it's ambiguous as to what you're disagreeing with.
Turbotbloke said:
If you'd said "I don't think business owners and multiple property owners commit electoral fraud", that would be clear. Or if you said "I think it is lefties/students alone that commit electoral fraud", you'd still be ok. But you didn't, and therefore it wasn't clear what you actually meant. Basic English lack of comprehension.
OK so far?
Now, you might argue that I was being ironic and therefore meant the opposite of what I actually said. But irony is ambiguous and, so, I can argue it either way. That's why you should have been more careful.
No more care needed.OK so far?
Now, you might argue that I was being ironic and therefore meant the opposite of what I actually said. But irony is ambiguous and, so, I can argue it either way. That's why you should have been more careful.
Turbotbloke said:
What you did was ascribe an attitude to me because you imagine I'm left wing (and therefore "the enemy", therefore must be contradicted). And so your error was compounded.
I couldn’t care less about your politics. I imagine you to be a t
t, based on many of your recent posts. As do others it seems.Turbotbloke said:
Whatever, let's imagine what you really meant to say was "Only lefties/students commit electoral fraud, small c conservative types don't”
Imagine what you like, it doesn’t change anything.Turbotbloke said:
That argument is predicated on your (unvoiced) assumption: Lefties are dishonest. Righties are not dishonest.
I don’t have such a view. So you are wrong again.Turbotbloke said:
Do you seriously want to go with that? When you know I can easily supply you with just as many examples of small c conservatives being dishonest as you can supply lefties being so. Really? If so, your ability to argue is based on nothing but flat contradiction (plus anal pettifogging) which you mistake as sounding intelligent.
I don't expect you to respond with a grown up argument but I'd suggest you don't point at that I missed out a comma somewhere - if you want to pettifog, I can do it in spades back to you. If you choose to argue in an intelligent manner without resorting to your usual bag of tricks it'd improve PH no end.
I quoted you entire post and clearly said that I don’t think that what you posted was true. Had I wanted to agree with one part and disagree with another, I would have used multiple quotes.I don't expect you to respond with a grown up argument but I'd suggest you don't point at that I missed out a comma somewhere - if you want to pettifog, I can do it in spades back to you. If you choose to argue in an intelligent manner without resorting to your usual bag of tricks it'd improve PH no end.
Now you’ve attempted to change the words you actually used, to try and score points!
Other people appeared to understand exactly what I meant. You didn’t. Never mind.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 22:43
gooner1 said:
Sidicks, re your post above.
Are you actually trying to pass of your quote as mine?
I quoted your actual post, but hadn’t realised that the formatting in your post was incorrect and which obviously was then carried on into mine. I’ve deleted my post as it was obviously misleading, due to the issues above.Are you actually trying to pass of your quote as mine?
You might like to edit yours so that the formatting is correct.
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
First we'll clear out the garbage (by removing subordinate clauses) and here's what I said:
"It's only lefties/students commit voter fraud. Conservative types (little c) wouldn't dream of doing such a thing."
No, that’s really not what you said. Why lie, when it’s easy to be proven wrong?"It's only lefties/students commit voter fraud. Conservative types (little c) wouldn't dream of doing such a thing."
Turbotbloke said:
To which you replied:
"I don't think that's true."
It's the that's which caused your difficulty. Because you failed to refer clearly to my original statements in your reply, it's ambiguous as to what you're disagreeing with.
I think it was your difficulty - other people had no problems."I don't think that's true."
It's the that's which caused your difficulty. Because you failed to refer clearly to my original statements in your reply, it's ambiguous as to what you're disagreeing with.
Turbotbloke said:
If you'd said "I don't think business owners and multiple property owners commit electoral fraud", that would be clear. Or if you said "I think it is lefties/students alone that commit electoral fraud", you'd still be ok. But you didn't, and therefore it wasn't clear what you actually meant. Basic English lack of comprehension.
OK so far?
Now, you might argue that I was being ironic and therefore meant the opposite of what I actually said. But irony is ambiguous and, so, I can argue it either way. That's why you should have been more careful.
No more care needed.OK so far?
Now, you might argue that I was being ironic and therefore meant the opposite of what I actually said. But irony is ambiguous and, so, I can argue it either way. That's why you should have been more careful.
Turbotbloke said:
What you did was ascribe an attitude to me because you imagine I'm left wing (and therefore "the enemy", therefore must be contradicted). And so your error was compounded.
I couldn’t care less about your politics. I imagine you to be a tt, based on many of your recent posts. As do others it seems.Turbotbloke said:
Whatever, let's imagine what you really meant to say was "Only lefties/students commit electoral fraud, small c conservative types don't”
Imagine what you like, it doesn’t change anything.Turbotbloke said:
That argument is predicated on your (unvoiced) assumption: Lefties are dishonest. Righties are not dishonest.
I don’t have such a view. So you are wrong again.Turbotbloke said:
Do you seriously want to go with that? When you know I can easily supply you with just as many examples of small c conservatives being dishonest as you can supply lefties being so. Really? If so, your ability to argue is based on nothing but flat contradiction (plus anal pettifogging) which you mistake as sounding intelligent.
I don't expect you to respond with a grown up argument but I'd suggest you don't point at that I missed out a comma somewhere - if you want to pettifog, I can do it in spades back to you. If you choose to argue in an intelligent manner without resorting to your usual bag of tricks it'd improve PH no end.
I quoted you entire post and clearly said that I don’t think that what you posted was true. Had I wanted to agree with one part and disagree with another, I would have used multiple quotes.I don't expect you to respond with a grown up argument but I'd suggest you don't point at that I missed out a comma somewhere - if you want to pettifog, I can do it in spades back to you. If you choose to argue in an intelligent manner without resorting to your usual bag of tricks it'd improve PH no end.
Now you’ve tried to change the words you used, to try and score points!
Other people appeared to understand exactly what I meant. You didn’t. Never mind.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 22:29
My argument stands. My original statements were ambiguous and you failed to clarify them, so you ended up agreeing with stuff you don't actually agree with. Yes, you should have used multiple quotes. At least you realise that now.
The words I removed, didn't alter the meaning of what I said, they clarified it. If you don't agree you have to explain how the meaning was altered. You have to argue, not simply contradict. Remember The Argument Sketch, Monty Python?
I know you think you know what you said and, if it were a colloquial conversation, people might agree but they'd be mistaken. The original statement was equivocal and you fell for it and now you can't accept you were misled. I'd suggest you go see Macbeth sometime to understand how it's done (although I'm afraid you still wouldn't get it and would ask for your money back - so much for art in the life of sidicks).
Anyway, putting that to one side, you say that it's 'not your view' that lefties are more dishonest than righties. In that case, would you care to give reasons why you think students etc are more likely to have committed electoral fraud than business property owners or multi property owners - who have similar opportunities? If you sincerely don't believe lefties are more dishonest, you must have some pretty strong supporting evidence to maintain that view. I'm all ears.
t
t, eh? Does Mrs Sid allow you to use language like that? Wasn't there some student who called a BBC radio phone-in when the idea of some students voting more than once was mooted and he stated that he had voted 3 times and knew of others that had voted more than once, he said he'd voted from his mothers address, once at his fathers address and once from his student address. Then again I may have imagined it as it was a while ago and I am getting on a bit.....
Turbotbloke said:
My argument stands. My original statements were ambiguous and you failed to clarify them, so you ended up agreeing with stuff you don't actually agree with. Yes, you should have used multiple quotes. At least you realise that now.
I didn’t agree with anything you’d said and that’s exactly what my post confirmed.If I’d have tried to weasel out of my earlier post by claiming that I actually meant to only agree with one of your two statements not both, then you might have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t.
Turbotbloke said:
The words I removed, didn't alter the meaning of what I said, they clarified it. If you don't agree you have to explain how the meaning was altered.
They don’t support your case. Your two statements were still both wrong, hence my disagreement with them.Turbotbloke said:
I know you think you know what you said and, if it were a colloquial conversation, people might agree but they'd be mistaken. The original statement was equivocal and you fell for it and now you can't accept you were misled. I'd suggest you go see Macbeth sometime to understand how it's done (although I'm afraid you still wouldn't get it and would ask for your money back - so much for art in the life of sidicks).
You seem determined to make statements that are demonstrably untrue (or misrepresent what others have said) and then, when you get called picked up on it, seek to pretend you’d said something entirely different or suggest that someone else is at fault, in your typical supercilious manner. There are numerous examples on this thread.I’m sure that trolling a motoring forum when you seemingly have no interest in cars is another sign of your massive intellect.
I’ll leave you to pretending you were right, even where you clearly weren’t.
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 10th March 07:18
Perik Omo said:
Wasn't there some student who called a BBC radio phone-in when the idea of some students voting more than once was mooted and he stated that he had voted 3 times and knew of others that had voted more than once, he said he'd voted from his mothers address, once at his fathers address and once from his student address. Then again I may have imagined it as it was a while ago and I am getting on a bit.....
Well if somebody phoned BBC radio then that's pretty conclusive proof 
Of course, he'd have been able to produce valid photo ID at each of those locations anyway...
mx5nut said:
Perik Omo said:
Wasn't there some student who called a BBC radio phone-in when the idea of some students voting more than once was mooted and he stated that he had voted 3 times and knew of others that had voted more than once, he said he'd voted from his mothers address, once at his fathers address and once from his student address. Then again I may have imagined it as it was a while ago and I am getting on a bit.....
Well if somebody phoned BBC radio then that's pretty conclusive proof Of course, he'd have been able to produce valid photo ID at each of those locations anyway...
gooner1 said:
B'stard Child said:
gooner1 said:
Messy post
You need to end a quote with [/quote]you are missing the /
For me the trick is to use the preview option if you have any doubt about the formatting - if it looks s
t in preview it's unlikely to improve when you hit submitgooner1 said:
I'll be the first to admit, I'm pretty st when it comes this kind of stuff,
ever day's a schoolday. Thanks for the tip.
It always get tricky when trying to extract individual quotes from a multi quote post if you don't fully understand how the quotes are built up.t when it comes this kind of stuff,ever day's a schoolday. Thanks for the tip.
However you don't seem like the type of person to give up so have another go and edit it again - use the preview tab let me see if I can help you further?
I think what you want It to look like is like this
You could copy paste the info in the code box
[quote=sidicks]Didn’t you think it was worthy of a separate thread?[/quote]
Possibly, but since it was you that introduced the information
in the first place, then maybe you should have done just that.
[quote=sidicks]See here:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/data-and-analysis#section-menu
I’d you don’t understand any of the big words in the report, just say.[/quote]
Btw, is that a Freudian slip above?
You could copy paste the info in the code box
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
Sidicks.
No worries, though your apology could have been a bit
less of a Shoot the messenger style.
Apologies, it was getting late.No worries, though your apology could have been a bit
less of a Shoot the messenger style.
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
Even I know there is a preview option.
But you don’t use it?! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff