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.

I did have the honesty to state "million or whatever", so concede it may have
been more than a million, and if you say it was 2 million, then I will not be
so rude or dramatic to call you a liar: I am willing to take your word on that
- it's something you profess to know much more about than I do.

How big is rent-a-mob?


Rob.

They know who they are. As for numbers, how can I possibly say, other than it
is a small proportion of the populaion as a whole.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

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.

I have pointed you towards numbers being quoted by several publications.
WHile I admit that without knowing the exact questions asked these aren't
100% authoritativ, they are all we have at present.

I'd be interested if you could supply polls that suggest that the majority
of the people in this country do want to see Bush visit. Until you do that,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with the only numbers we have, not
your gut instincts.

Best wishes,
Jonn

In
Mait001 wrote:

You have already accused me of being a liar,

What exactly are you referring to?

--
kedron

In
Mait001 wrote:

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?

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.

There is sufficient information by way of polls, both before and after the war, to get
the measure of public opinion.

Before the war, a pro-war majority was predicated on UN support -- without it,
pro-war opinion was about 25%. Post war, support has fluctuated, but the country
is pretty much split down the middle. (A substantial majority of the public now
believe they were lied to). That's what the polls have said -- not your feelings.

If now half the country does not support the military action that was taken, are
you then asserting that none of that anti-war opinion has any support for the
demonstrators?


--
kedron

Mait001 wrote:

You have already accused me of being a liar,

What exactly are you referring to?

--
kedron


Sorry, kedron, I am in error: it was Steve.

My ISP does not save read messages, so that's why I made the mistake as to whom
made the accsuation, relying on my memory.

Marc.

In
Mait001 wrote:

What exactly are you referring to?

--
kedron


Sorry, kedron, I am in error: it was Steve.

accepted.

--
kedron

"kedron" wrote in message
...

In
Mait001 wrote:

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?

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.

There is sufficient information by way of polls, both before and after the
war, to get
the measure of public opinion.

Before the war, a pro-war majority was predicated on UN support -- without
it,
pro-war opinion was about 25%. Post war, support has fluctuated, but the
country
is pretty much split down the middle. (A substantial majority of the
public now
believe they were lied to). That's what the polls have said -- not your
feelings.

If now half the country does not support the military action that was
taken, are
you then asserting that none of that anti-war opinion has any support for
the
demonstrators?


--
kedron

Maybe you should read today's Guardian! Oops!!!

Robert Griffith

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"rob" wrote in
:


"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.


You are being hypocritical here, you are making wild claimes that you
cannot substantiate are numerous askings. Noone here is making the
claims you alleged though.


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.

Thats fine, however, when calling people arrogant, make sure you call be
people that said such. You called me arrogant, I never made those
quotes.




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?

When claiming you are reiterating what you are saying, it is dishonest
to claim you said something you did not.

Maybe after reading the ICM Poll in today's Guardian you will now accept the
statements I have previously made? And, please don't fall back on your
accusation of introducing new variables!

Robert Griffith

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"rob" wrote in
:

(snipped)

Maybe after reading the ICM Poll in today's Guardian you will now
accept the statements I have previously made? And, please don't fall
back on your accusation of introducing new variables!



So what does that conclude? Only 43% percent welcome his visit, how does
that contractdict anything I said?

I only had a go at for for introducing new variables when you claimed to
be re-iterating what you formerly said - that is dishonest.

Maybe you should re-read our previous posts on what is now becoming a rather
tedious exchange!
My stance has been that the antiwar/antiBush sentiments have been hyped up
and were exaggerated. Your reaction was to challenge this. In one post you
said "You are being hypocritical here, you are making wild claimes that you
cannot substantiate are numerous askings" Your grammar not mine!
Today's ICM Poll reports that 43% welcome the visit; 36% do not and a
significant 21% don't know/have no views. If that does not support the view
I expressed then I don't know what will. Maybe you would prefer 100% to
support the visit. Sadly, life is not like that.

Robert Griffith

In
rob wrote:

Maybe you should read today's Guardian! Oops!!!

Maybe you should too.

There is only one question in the Guardian poll pertinent to the
statistics I was roughly summarising, and it confirms the view that
the country is split down the middle.

Polls aren't for amateurs either. Oops!!!

--
kedron