The EU debate - Part II

Are you sure?

 

It's ok I understand now that your original post was incorrect and not what you actually meant.

I have no desire to have anyone on a leash.

 

That's been blindingly obvious in the various follow up news shows since the referendum where voters have been asked their views on what they see happening post Brexit.

Oh wait..........

 

No. I easily showed you are wrong by showing a scenario that is contrary to your claim.

For that is the nature of (mathematical) proof, Stan.
The burden of proof falls on the originator to show their claim holds in all contexts.
As this can often be very difficult to do, an easier complementary method is to try
and find one context for which the claim does not hold.

I hope this helps you in wording any future claims you may make on this article.

 

The GBP is the worst performing currency in the world at the minute so you'll do well to "easily show" anything but your arse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...g-currency-eu-referendum-brexit-a7127246.html

 

And again for your benefit....worst performing currency in the world in 2016.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gentine-peso-to-become-2016-s-worst-performer

 

Sorry Stan, but "at the minute" is not "all contexts" . So your claim is still flawed.

 

Where has this "all contexts" come from? Is it some mechanism you are using to try and cover up your incorrect claim? Reminds me of someone......

 

All MPS lie to get your vote. Outcome is still OUT. I cant see many Tory MPs voting against it

 

In a posting I wrote earlier, that you quoted verbatim in an immediate reply.
You did read/understand the text before replying, Stan. Yes ??

 

So you're admitting that your initial claim was wrong hence having to amend it. Reminds me of someone.....

 

No Stan, I am :

1. referring you to a posting of mine where I typed the words "all contexts"
(specifically in educating you about proof theory)

2. trying to ascertain whether you either read/understood that text before
quoting it verbatim in an immediate reply to me.

Is this clear to you, Stan ??
If not, please feel free to say so and I will endeavour to help as best I can
to clarify the appropriate parts of said text for you.

 

You made a claim as a statement of fact. You weren't expecting to be called on it but @steveninaster1 did that. You then admitted you couldn't back up your claim and were presented with statistical evidence that you were talking out of your hole. Keep digging Mini-Me. Maybe you should call the police

 

Dear oh dear, Stan. I did no such thing.
You made a statement about only a specific class of UK company is not bothered
by the Leave result. I gave you a simple example (a "context" ) which contradicts your statement.

With the aftermath being that you :

1. Appear to be very irritated that someone easily found such a context.

2. Seem similarly irritated by the notion that such contexts do not have to have
occurred, only that they are possible (an essence of the proof method)

 

My Nanna used to say "dear oh dear".

You gave an example that contradicted my statement. You then admitted that you couldn't back up that example and statistical evidence supported the fact that it couldn't be backed up which therefore made your example nonsense.

I think you know that which is why you are going down a different route now, blabbering on about "context". Reminds me of someone.....

 

People do use the phrase. Is this what you meant to say ??


"You gave an example that contradicted my statement. You then admitted that you couldn't back up that example and statistical evidence supported the fact that it couldn't be backed up which therefore made your example nonsense."

Dear oh dear, Stan.

I gave you an example that CAN occur.
You seem to believe that because an unremarkable example HAS NOT OCCURRED IN 2016,
then it never has occurred /will occur and therefore the example is nonsense.
Which is flawed reasoning.


"I think you know that which is why you are going down a different route now, blabbering on about "context." ."

Would it better help you in future if I use the word "example" instead of "context"
(as use of the latter seems to be causing you pain) ??

 

Easy to wade into a discussion and dispute a point. Harder to back it up which is what you've categorically failed to do. Keep trying though.

 

UK CANNOT stay in EU 'through back door' May warns her Cabinet: We WILL forge new future

THERESA MAY has wasted no time in reminding her senior Cabinet members "Brexit means Brexit", as they meet for the first time since their summer recess today.

The new PM told her Cabinet this morning: "We must continue to be very clear that Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.
"That means no second referendum, no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door."

 

My prediction (well, not actually mine, I read versions of this in various media);

May keeps kicking the can down the road while Boris, Liam Fox and David Davis do what they do best, ie nothing of substance, they carry the blame for their ineptitude, the referendum gets overtaken by events, article 50 goes the way of the 18th century corn laws (look it up), Romanian gypsies move in next door to Kustard and one of them marries his daughter.

Everyone lives happily ever after.