OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

That must be a record
What a twonk

Says the guy who posts links to barmy idiots on youtube and reports by the Express as "proof", the guy who has in the not too distant past threatened and bullied other posters on here and the Forest site, who when having had his opinions and so called facts completely disproved, continues in the sme old vein. Jeeze you do make yourself looks stupid and if then absolutely proves what a Neanderthal he is by repeating, not for the first time a threat as to what would happen if I said it to his face down his local!

As if I'd be bothered by you!

[swaledale]

Moderators have many 'means' and closing a thread either permanently or temporarily is something I've done before on this forum, including with this thread and the three or four other 'putting the world to rights' threads over the past few years. I've done it loads of times on the music forums I moderate on facebook, its a great way of cooling the temperature of a debate without sanctioning individuals. I'll probably do it again, especially when 'debate' becomes 'abuse'. Recently, 'ignore the ***' and 'what an utter **** you are' (mods can see the words) overstep the mark from debate into abuse.

Well you could lead by example and admit that

I refer you to my post #7913 Not sure how he could have used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.

It was GP who poured scorn on MY suggestion that this was the case, so hardly "my entrenched world view"

So wrong again.

Thats twice in this thread in the last few posts - not that you have acknowledged that your previous statement that I was
‘factually and significantly wrong’, to state "that not even all those who still post regularly voted remain" was incorrect because at least one poster voted Leave.

I look forward to the acknowledgement from you of your errors.

[Andy_Faber]

I refer you to my post #7913 Not sure how he could have used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.

It was GP who poured scorn on MY suggestion that this was the case, so hardly "my entrenched world view"

I look forward to the acknowledgement from you of your errors.

'entrenched world view' is an opinion, it may be considered right or wrong by you and/or others but if I meant it, which I did, it can't be an 'error' so I can't acknowledge it as such

[swaledale]

'entrenched world view' is an opinion, it may be considered right or wrong by you and/or others but if I meant it, which I did, it can't be an 'error' so I can't acknowledge it as such

Indeed it is but when you state an example of what you consider to be my "entrenched world view" which was not actually what I posted (in fact I'd posted the opposite) then your wrong and can acknowledge that, but you won't.

Nor indeed the fact that my statement "not even all those still posting on here voted remain" was absolutely not as you said "Factually and significantly wrong"

These are not opinions they are statements and false statements, but any fool can see that except it seems the one who made them.

[ramAnag]

Moderators have many 'means' and closing a thread either permanently or temporarily is something I've done before on this forum, including with this thread and the three or four other 'putting the world to rights' threads over the past few years. I've done it loads of times on the music forums I moderate on facebook, its a great way of cooling the temperature of a debate without sanctioning individuals. I'll probably do it again, especially when 'debate' becomes 'abuse'. Recently, 'ignore the ***' and 'what an utter **** you are' (mods can see the words) overstep the mark from debate into abuse.

I’m sure you have...doesn’t actually make it right though, does it?
It doesn’t actually ‘cool’ debate though...it terminates it.

[Andy_Faber]

Indeed it is but when you state an example of what you consider to be my "entrenched world view" which was not actually what I posted (in fact I'd posted the opposite) then your wrong and can acknowledge that, but you won't.

That sentence has more twists and turns than John Lennon's effort in I Am The Walrus, you really need to be clearer about what's eating you if you want a response

[Andy_Faber]

Swale, here's a timeline of our discussion since I posted, in all good faith, my comment about bar staff what seems like months ago

7908 I responded to a request to give an example of a Brexit benefit with a small but genuine ‘win’ I’ve come across
7909 GP casts doubt on it with a fair point
7910 you also cast doubt on it with a fair point
7911 I accept GP point and give a response, I didn’t respond to yours as I hadn’t seen it. Idid read it later, and although I considered your anecdote irrelevant to mine and just a piece of tit for tat, I decided not to respond
7913 is where you start to unravel. You respond (to GP) with an assumption that shows you haven’t thought things through in your desperation to hold sway. You said ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ But that Ignores the possibility (and this is indeed the case) that the employer was paying his former staff at (in fact above) minimum wage, but he’s now paying his current staff just that bit more. So your anti-Brexit obsession has led you to confuse ‘cheaper’ with ‘illegally’
7915 you go further off-piste in response to a piece of GP tomfoolery at 7914.
7916 I try, I really do, to put you right. I even qualify my earlier anecdote by explaining that increased wages have resulted in increased menu prices
7917 You still don’t get it. No-one but you ever mentioned minimum wage or the abuse of it apart from you, you seem to be arguing with yourself at this stage
7918 you revert to type and try to drag rA into the argument
7925 you’re at it again, you still haven’t let go of the minimum wage thing
It all then goes quiet for 40 or so posts as you turn your attention to Tricky
7962 and you are back on it with what I’ve described as your ‘I am the walrus’ post, the content/logic/background to which just makes NO sense to me
I am GENUINELY confused and ask you to back to my original post, as I have, and decide for yourself if you’ve misunderstood

[ramAnag]

Storm in a teacup...but it would help, AF, if you could ever accept that you’re wrong.
As you’re citing posts...I said initially, in #7902, that you were wrong and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind.
You made out that Swale was wasting his time because everyone on here voted Remain.
That wasn’t and isn’t true and that should be all there is to it.
You tried the same tactic with me about refuse collections earlier in the year. You were mistaken, weren’t even talking about the same correspondence, but again you wouldn’t accept it.
This time you’re even more demonstrably wrong...that’s okay and like I said it’s become a (very dull and frustrating) storm in a teacup...but it could have been avoided if you’d just accept that, like us all, you are not above making mistakes.

[swaledale]

Swale, here's a timeline of our discussion since I posted, in all good faith, my comment about bar staff what seems like months ago

7908 I responded to a request to give an example of a Brexit benefit with a small but genuine ‘win’ I’ve come across
7909 GP casts doubt on it with a fair point
7910 you also cast doubt on it with a fair point
7911 I accept GP point and give a response, I didn’t respond to yours as I hadn’t seen it. Idid read it later, and although I considered your anecdote irrelevant to mine and just a piece of tit for tat, I decided not to respond
7913 is where you start to unravel. You respond (to GP) with an assumption that shows you haven’t thought things through in your desperation to hold sway. You said ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ But that Ignores the possibility (and this is indeed the case) that the employer was paying his former staff at (in fact above) minimum wage, but he’s now paying his current staff just that bit more. So your anti-Brexit obsession has led you to confuse ‘cheaper’ with ‘illegally’
7915 you go further off-piste in response to a piece of GP tomfoolery at 7914.
7916 I try, I really do, to put you right. I even qualify my earlier anecdote by explaining that increased wages have resulted in increased menu prices
7917 You still don’t get it. No-one but you ever mentioned minimum wage or the abuse of it apart from you, you seem to be arguing with yourself at this stage
7918 you revert to type and try to drag rA into the argument
7925 you’re at it again, you still haven’t let go of the minimum wage thing
It all then goes quiet for 40 or so posts as you turn your attention to Tricky
7962 and you are back on it with what I’ve described as your ‘I am the walrus’ post, the content/logic/background to which just makes NO sense to me
I am GENUINELY confused and ask you to back to my original post, as I have, and decide for yourself if you’ve misunderstood

If your genuinely think that my statement ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ ignores the fact that the landlord could be paying more than the minimum wage, then I can only assume you don't know what the phrase "at least" means!

It was GP who suggested that it wasn't unheard of for staff to being paid cash in hand and below the minimum wage, not me! So I haven't confused cheaper with illegally and therefore your assertion that my anti Brexit obsession (as you put it) didn't lead me to be confused at all.

Though it does seem to me that you have difficulty in comprehension, but hey ho!

By the way I haven't an "anti Brexit obsession - just a healthy aim to remind those fools who voted for Brexit, with out a clue what they were voting for, about how Brexit has not nor will it ever have the benefits that were claimed. No amount of "moving on" or making the best of it will change that fact I I do enjoy a bit of schadenfreude!

I can see that in future I shall keep my posts simple and use fewer syllables and explain each point clearly, I over estimate the ability of those reading them to comprehend.

[Andy_Faber]

Storm in a teacup...but it would help, AF, if you could ever accept that you’re wrong.
As you’re citing posts...I said initially, in #7902, that you were wrong and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind.
You made out that Swale was wasting his time because everyone on here voted Remain.
That wasn’t and isn’t true and that should be all there is to it.
You tried the same tactic with me about refuse collections earlier in the year. You were mistaken, weren’t even talking about the same correspondence, but again you wouldn’t accept it.
This time you’re even more demonstrably wrong...that’s okay and like I said it’s become a (very dull and frustrating) storm in a teacup...but it could have been avoided if you’d just accept that, like us all, you are not above making mistakes.

I recall that spat, it began when you relied on a subsequently discredited report which quoted an unsubstantiated amount for the shortage of lorry drivers and which you embellished by describing erroneously that already incorrect number as being ‘entirely’ due to Brexit. My ‘mistake’ on that occasion was giving into pressure from you to apologise for a perceived sleight, and it taught me that I find it easier to say sorry than you do to accept that apology in good faith. All water under the bridge after so long though