CB Fry

Except you do say it here. That's the thing about forums. What you write actually stays there for people to see. It's the bit where you say "they should do the same" - I took that to mean "they should do the same" because you wrote "they should do the same". No actual mention of neither here at all. You've only said neither in other posts is when you've said "both or neither" and my point is that is a false choice as both would have been wrong. So not both, an option you desperately continue to cling to. Anyway, clearly I am wasting my time here. I tried.

I don't understand how the Metro have spun that as him insulting the fans. Just typical vague footballer platitudes. Obviously the insult is basically how terrible they've been all season, but that's a different thing.

Now what are you on about? I haven't said you said that C4 shared false information, I'm saying that's what you keep asking them to do. Read my post again. The info C4 shared was correct, the info you seem to want them to have shown would have been wrong and not justified by the data. You don't understand the simple point I am making, which is odd, but I'll stop making it because it is pretty bleeding dull now.

It's not an argument, it's just contradiction. It isn't a lie, it's true. If you want to read more into it then fine but avoid saying "I read this in the leaflet and it's an absolute lie" when it, well, ain't.

Here's your quote from the leaflet. It's not a lie, or an "absolute lie" to use your phrase. It's true. It's what we call the truth.

That worked then. We'll win this.

Everton are pretty good at late capitulation, so we will definitely score in a minute. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If by being "pedantic" you mean calling you out when you clearly lie, then yes.

Being that he's now proved everyone wrong and is clearly now a top half Premier League quality mega-player after all, how come Gaston has been starting on the bench for the last couple of Boro matches? One can only assume that the rest of the squad have been swallowed up with jealousy at being in the presence of such brilliance and have complained to the manager.

I've never said "crazy as a box of frogs" but the expression I have used is clearly not as perojative or clearly related to mental illness/disability as references to "dribbling from the side of your mouth". Ditto "swivel eyed" which has a long history in political commentary over the years. I don't think I have seen either of those expressions linked to mental illness or disability or Down's syndrome or Cerebal Palsy that your expression could easily be linked to. Funnily enough I use those two expressions directly about two different and specific contributors to this forum, neither of them you. I think you feel you're missing out as I haven't got a catchphrase for you. Anyway, make your mind up - if you are feigning offence at "Box of Frogs" then why are you using references to "dribbling from the side of your mouth" as a perojative term which is far, far worse on any measure you like. Let's be clear, I'm not in any way offended - you will never offend me - but I am enjoying your usual, addled, rag-bag of contradictory nonsence that makes up your thought process. Anyway, I am sure you are only three or four posts away from you pompously asking "are you saying this about ALL 1 billion Muslims???" to someone on this thread for the 57th time. Here's a hint: they aren't.

I think your "dribbling from the side of your mouth" comment is unhelpful and offensive with a clear implication. For someone who likes to ponce about on every thread as a holier-than-though moral authority it's interesting to get some clear evidence to show how paricularly malevolent you can be. We've seen it now a few times in the last couple of days and it's good to see how you really are.

You going to start accusing me of being autistic or disabled too now? Classy.

It's you getting wound up, I'm just pointing and laughing.

Indeed it is. Not really helped by people saying that factually correct statements are "absolute lies", is it? That's the dictionary definition of spurious, yes? If that's anal to you, then it's going to be a long ten weeks.

Try and stick to the facts in future. I accept your apology.

My advice would be to not make stuff up in your head and then claim it is an absolute lie. "Absolute" is a rather difinitive statement and the "oh it was from memory" vagueness only came afterwards. And has been mentioned the statement isn't an absolute lie anyway. But carry on, it's good to get the measure of someone.

The side of truth.

What's agressive about pointing out absolute lies?

You only said it was from memory when I challenged your "absolute lie" claim. Although in fairness your original post was correct. What you said was in the leaflet was indeed an absolute lie.

And my point, which it looks like you still don't understand, is that the 1% is not statistically significant to justify turning that into a population equivalent. It would be an unjustified, sensationalist number. On the 4% it wasn't incorrect to show the population, just ill-advised editorially. For you to again suggest Channel 4 knowingly share false and unjustified information suggest you don't really understand what "a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures" actually means. Funny I thought you understood my point when I explained before but looks like I over estimated you. Try again. PS. Also interesting you switched the percentages around in this post. Nice try.

And thats not an "absolute lie" is it? I came through an airport the other day and I was checked and I weren't even a greasy dago, frog or kraut or a brown person or nothing.

Using the percentage of Muslims was fine as it shows a representative sample - a small minority that agreed with the statement and also indexed significantly above the control group. That's how they should have explained the data - a distinct minority who expressed "sympathy" versus the control sample. The % were small so unhelpful to dramatise it with hundreds of thousands of people, but not strictly wrong as it gave a reading within the margin of error, but just misjudged. Your "both or neither" argument came after you twice asking for C4 to express the 1% of the general population as a number and, more importantly, after I explained to you why this would be sensationalist and silly, but nice try anyway.

Quite. Nothing worse than the false confidence of "look at the team they're putting out!!". A win tomorrow will be a great result, regardless of who they send out.

You explained your thoughts, I'm just pointing out you were wrong twice to ask they say something which would have been completely misleading and unfounded.

Just trying to point out that something you wanted C4 to do so much you mentioned it twice on this thread was a rather silly thing to ask for. Happy to help though.