Poll: Boris voters - is he camping with a baby?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68110
  • Start date Start date
SexyGreyFox said:
Why do you think I've read the thread?
Come on James, you are one of the best posters on this forum, don't fall to their level.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes or a no then?

Just stop telling people that they must care if they post. You can critique a question on a subject without caring about the subject, and the opinions of people who do are valid even if you don't like it; this is supposed to be a discussion board, not an echo chamber and, besides, the OP did ask for a poll so he obviously wanted everybody's opinions anyway. Whether they care or don't.
 
Stumble Bum said:
Not sure what your problem with him is, but you're just derailing the thread over some pedantic irrelevant point you're trying to make. It is boring.
Click to expand...

If you can be bothered to read then you will know I haven't got a problem with Uther, he's just read something wrong.
My problem is with idiots who come into a thread they don't care about to type "who cares?" which completely spoils my enjoyment of the thread :)
 
So the theory is that Boris, the PM of the country, has tried to covertly holiday on abramovic's old superyatch, now owned by a russian-american oil tycoon, under the guise of glamping next to a cottage in a location they had attempted to keep secret?

You know how people get on to yachts, right? Helicopters and speedboats, both of which will be hard to keep covert when deployed across or along a popular coastal line. But, I concede covertness is doable.

Also, why go to the effort of the tent and cottage and risk being seen on land if you prefer to simply stay on the superyatch?

And... why would Boris be staying on someone else's luxury yacht when he has the ability to stay in his luxury manor house, chequers?



Your prejudice is obvious, your credulity is ridiculous, and your inability to absorb legitimate information is depressing.



And finally, when asked "why?" it would be courteous to not simply repeat the original assertion but expand and provide detail. The fact you don't is extremely telling.



This has been a fun thread.
 
dowie said:
Thats a point you could have grasped yesterday if you'd not been so evasive... you were prompted several times to give your take.. to elaborate. That would include having to explain what you think the tent was put up for if he wasn't sleeping in it....
Click to expand...
I wasnt evasive. I was busy yesterday. As I said before.
NVP said:
Your prejudice is obvious, your credulity is ridiculous, and your inability to absorb legitimate information is depressing.

And finally, when asked "why?" it would be courteous to not simply repeat the original assertion but expand and provide detail. The fact you don't is extremely telling.
Click to expand...
Wow. What a load of obtuse claptrap.

Ironic that while I've answered questions where asked, you've just posted a rake of unsubstantiated accusations.
 
NVP said:
Please, explain.
Click to expand...
How've I failed to "absorb legitimate information" or been prejudiced in any way?

I asked who was so credulous to think Boris was on a camping holiday with his baby.

You seem to think that is somehow a less valid question than, say:-
NVP said:
why would Boris be staying on someone else's luxury yacht when he has the ability to stay in his luxury manor house, chequers?
Click to expand...
... By any objective measure, that's a really dumb question.
 
Being banned from the Speaker's Corner this thread is an interesting insight into how the intelligentsia from that hallowed place, those that decried voters for leaving the EU as ill educated and far worse, debate. I can honestly say to call Speaker's Corner a place for intelligent debate of newsworthy issues should perhaps be renamed if this is an example of them at their most erudite ;)
 
garnett said:
I wasnt evasive. I was busy yesterday. As I said before.
Wow. What a load of obtuse claptrap.
Click to expand...

I think the only person being obtuse here is you. You made several evasive replies previously when you could have just whacked in a brief couple of sentences to explain your position. That you didn’t believe his partner was with him, that he’s secretly on a Russian billionaire’s yacht and why you believe that to be true (you still haven’t cleared that up now despite being asked).

You’re still being evasive now, your assertion is completely devoid of any argument or explanation to support it and you’ve again failed to answer the obvious points raised.

Like are you *now* saying he did in fact camp in the tent but spent more time in this yacht? That’s what your more recent question implied but you don’t clarify that.

If not then what is your plausible explanation for him being photographed in a field by the cottage?

Yet again you’re evasive and unwilling to give even a brief explanation of what your claim is... which is perhaps because it’s becoming increasingly apparent you’ve imagined a rather implausible scenario.

The fact you started off the thread calling others credulous and now are shying away from even explaining your position is rather ironic.
 
dowie said:
I think the only person being obtuse here is you. You made several evasive replies previously when you could have just whacked in a brief couple of sentences to explain your position. That you didn’t believe his partner was with him, that he’s secretly on a Russian billionaire’s yacht and why you believe that to be true (you still haven’t cleared that up now despite being asked).

You’re still being evasive now, your assertion is completely devoid of any argument or explanation to support it and you’ve again failed to answer the obvious points raised.

Like are you *now* saying he did in fact camp in the tent but spent more time in this yacht? That’s what your more recent question implied but you don’t clarify that.

If not then what is your plausible explanation for him being photographed in a field by the cottage?

Yet again you’re evasive and unwilling to give even a brief explanation of what your claim is... which is perhaps because it’s becoming increasingly apparent you’ve imagined a rather implausible scenario.

The fact you started off the thread calling others credulous and now are shying away from even explaining your position is rather ironic.
Click to expand...
I think you're projecting this need of yours to focus on minutiae onto others.

I'll admit I've not mapped out a precise timeline of where Johnson has been at every hour of the day over last few weeks - I don't think anyone knows.

Just because I've not met your weird expectations, it doesn't automatically follow that I'm being evasive.

As I've said, I think you need to be fairly credulous that Johnson spent his holiday in a tent on a camping holiday as was reported.

It's since transpired that he most likely stayed in a cottage.

I've pointed that out a number of times and yet you keep repeating this lie about me not saying so. Very odd behaviour.
 
garnett said:
I've answered questions where asked.
Click to expand...

Not really - you had to be prompted a few times previously and you've ignored rather obvious ones now we've finally teased out some of your position... why don't you just speak plainly and share your views? If you're going to make a claim or assert a belief then a brief line saying why would be useful and an explanation of the facts/evidence that would appear to contradict your position too.

Some obvious questions you've dodged here, the reason these questions exist is because you've made a bold claim/assertion without providing any explanation for why it should be believed... (in a thread where you're trying to portray others as credulous!)

NVP said:
Why exactly do you think it is unlikely that he spent time on his holiday in a tent?
Click to expand...
garnett said:
Because he's more likely to spend time in a nearby superyacht.
Click to expand...
NVP said:
That isn't an answer. You need to provide detail when asked a "why" question.
Click to expand...

robfosters said:
The yacht is a long way from where Boris holidayed. Why would he stay on the yacht, then travel that far to act out a phoney holiday when no one knew where he was going anyway?
Click to expand...

NVP said:
So the theory is that Boris, the PM of the country, has tried to covertly holiday on abramovic's old superyatch, now owned by a russian-american oil tycoon, under the guise of glamping next to a cottage in a location they had attempted to keep secret?
[...]
Also, why go to the effort of the tent and cottage and risk being seen on land if you prefer to simply stay on the superyatch?
[...]
And finally, when asked "why?" it would be courteous to not simply repeat the original assertion but expand and provide detail. The fact you don't is extremely telling.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom