"Steve" wrote in message
...
"rob" wrote in
:
(snipped)
One final go, I believe:
a. the active anti-war/antiBush support is exaggerated

Based on what? Speculation or in your own words:

"Given the total population of the UK, I do not recall the country
grinding to a halt in a way it would have done so, had most of its
adult population joined a demonstration."

Neither is credible.

So on what evidence do you make point a?

As I have said before, it is simply arrogance on your part to make
dismissive statements like "Neither is credible". Why not? Give me
your evidence if you believe it so important as to justify your
approval of this demonstration.


you have been asked how you can justify saying

"the active anti-war/antiBush support is exaggerated"

You have not managed this, all you have done is just reiterated it. You
also repeated accusations of arrogance.

Is this not enforcing your views on others, you are clearly not up to
debating your views since you have failed on a number of occasions to
justify them. Is that not arrogance and additionally hypocrasy?

On the contrary, I'm not enforcing my views on anyone. However, I am
objecting to wild and exaggerated statements made in this newsgroup
suggesting that the population of this country are anti-war/antiBush so as
to justify a demonstration next week.
Clearly we have a differing understanding as to what is arrogant. When I am
told that my comments are "totally nonsensical, incoherent and inconsistent
and that I "scored 0/10 for intelligence" then to me that is arrogance on
the part of the person making it.

b. there are other ways to express ones disagreement rather than
participating in yobbish demonstrations! yep yobbish!

So now you are twisting your own words, noone mentioned yobbish
before, now you feel the need to add it, sorry, it does not help you
out of your hole.

In what way am I twisting my words?

In attempting to reiterate what you have previously claimed you
introduce new variables, this is clearly not honest.

You mean it is dishonest to develop an argument but raising new points?
Since when?

Robert Griffith