"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

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly
believe,
the
vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever.

Marc.

What exactly is an ordinary person?


Someone who is not a member of the rent-a-mob that turns out for most
demonstrations that take place.



I've never been to a demonstration, but I've been in agreement with several.
Plenty of my friends are the same. (We're an apathetic lot). I don't think
you can just dismiss demonstrations of this scale as a "rent-a-mob" -
especially not if you're going to use "silent majority" arguments.

Jonn

I've never been to a demonstration, but I've been in agreement with several.
Plenty of my friends are the same. (We're an apathetic lot). I don't think
you can just dismiss demonstrations of this scale as a "rent-a-mob" -
especially not if you're going to use "silent majority" arguments.

Jonn

But that does not affect my definition of "ordinary people" who, I still
maintain, are the sort of people that do not go on demonstrations. Whether they
support those that do or not is another matter, but does not remove them, or
you, from my definition.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

But that does not affect my definition of "ordinary people"

Your definition of "ordinary people" isn't worth the electrons
in your computer. You are bigot and an idiot.

--
kedron

In
Mait001 wrote:

(a) not anything like the "majority" of the population opposed the war,

The population was lied to. Perhaps not anything like a majority
were not stupid enough to be fooled. But the truth is coming out, as
it always does, and look what's been happening to the popularity
ratings.

If you say so.

So that doesn't matter to you?

Is that because you're a liar too?


--
kedron

In
Mait001 wrote:

Not the "population as a whole". Millions couldn't demonstrate -- like children,
people who live too far away, sick people, old people, and of course people who
had no choice but to work. In the face of that, "a million or so" is a lot more
significant than you are trying to suggest.

There you go again, trying to spin a million (or whatever the actual number
was) to represent many more than just themselves.

What are you saying?

Are you saying this casual million, I'm spinning, represents the only people
who would have marched had they been able to, or had it been more convenient
for them to do so?

The bigots, liars and morons of this country are the real rabble.

eh?

--
kedron

On 16 Nov 2003 23:39:57 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

No doubt some demonstrators are "ordinary" people but, I firmly believe,
the
vast majority of "ordinary" people do not demonstrate - ever.

Marc.

What exactly is an ordinary person?


Someone who is not a member of the rent-a-mob that turns out for most
demonstrations that take place.

Marc.

I thought the total number of demonstrators for the Iraq demo earlier
in the year was 2 million.


How big is rent-a-mob?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

But that does not affect my definition of "ordinary people"

Your definition of "ordinary people" isn't worth the electrons
in your computer. You are bigot and an idiot.

If you say so: I am now going to go and die quietly, so upset am I by your
opinion.

Or, better still, I'm going to die in a way that disrupts the lives of
millions of ordinary people, just for the hell of it....

Marc.

The population was lied to. Perhaps not anything like a majority
were not stupid enough to be fooled. But the truth is coming out, as
it always does, and look what's been happening to the popularity
ratings.

If you say so.

So that doesn't matter to you?

Is that because you're a liar too?


--
kedron


You seem convinced that "the population was lied to". I was merely agreeing
with you, since you obviously have omnipotent powers and are uncontradicatble.

I do nopt accept that we were lied to, so your comment "So that doesn't metter
to you" is inappropriate.

You have already accused me of being a liar, to which I replied by challenging
you to quote the lies I have told, to which you have chosen not to reply.

Marc.

There you go again, trying to spin a million (or whatever the actual number
was) to represent many more than just themselves.

What are you saying?

Are you saying this casual million, I'm spinning, represents the only people
who would have marched had they been able to, or had it been more convenient
for them to do so?

The bigots, liars and morons of this country are the real rabble.

eh?

--
kedron



You cannot produce any evidence to suggest that the numbers who demonstrate(d)
represent anyone but themselves. You are attempting to extrapolate those
numbers into a much larger mass who, for one reason or another cannot, or
decided no to, demonstrate.

What I am suggesting is that, even if ten times the number did demonstrate,
that would still be nowhere near a majority of the population.

The bigots, liars and morons of this country are the real rabble.

Now you are just indulging in a rant.

Marc.