Why do you say this is untrue: do you want me to provide you with all
of Chelsea's home matches and extra matches when there's an "away"
draw?

Why do I say it is untrue you ask, perhaps because it is false.

Are you telling me that Chelsea DO NOT play "at home" at least once a
fortnight? I have lived in this house for 38 years, and KNOW that what I am
writing is true.



As for not being able to leave home when there's a "home" match - how
dare you have the temerity to suggest that I cannot leave my home. If
the streets are gridlocked, I cannot drive anywhere, and public
transport is also gridlocked. True, I might be able to go for a walk
to look at all the football suppprters in their hordes, but I have
rather more important things to do with my time.

How dare I? Perhaps again because what you said was false.

Are you telling me that I CAN drive or catch a bus from where I live when
Chelsea play at home?

Your arrogance in accusing me of lying is verging on the offensive.


The three "lies" you have quoted are not lies, but even if they were,
this hardly comes within the definition of "lied often in this thread
already", or are there other "lies" which you are too bashful to
quote?

How many proven lies does a witness need to make before they are deemed
unreliable, one?

Now you change the goalposts: being unable to substantiate your slur, that I
"lied often in this thread already", you now seek to suggest that only one lie
matters. When confronted with the emptiness of your own assertion, you then
just move on to another one, ignoring your error. Nice student union debating
tactic, but wholly worthless.

Marc.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
(Mait001) wrote in
:

(snipped)

You have fallen into the trap the rob fell into of calling me arrogant
without providing evidence, this simply being arrogant itself and thus
also labelling you a hypocrite to boot.


Having read today's ICM Poll in the Guardian you may wish to accept the
arrogance of your dismissal of my earlier assertions! I rest my case with
just a hint of gloating.

Robert Griffith

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

Having read today's ICM Poll in the Guardian you may wish to accept the
arrogance of your dismissal of my earlier assertions! I rest my case
with
just a hint of gloating.

You case being?

Have you read the poll or merely the headlines?

Q3. President George Bush is coming to Britain next week on a state
visit. Do you welcome his visit or would you prefer he did not come?


Welcome his visit - 43%


My case being that a majority of people are not antiwar/antiBush visit. You
have asked for evidence etc. Well here it is! Yes, I have read the article.
Have you? If so you will also have read that 36% would prefer him not to
come and a significant 21% did not know/had no views. This latter figure
alone suggests there are rather less "antis" than you would wish. Maybe
apathetic folk but certainly not strong "antis".
The Poll also reports that 47% consider the war justified; 41% unjustified
and 12% did not know/have no views.

While it has been an interesting debate I think it is now becoming a bit
tedious and very much off- topic. So its goodbye from me as he dusts off his
Stars& Stripes!!

Robert Griffith

My case being that a majority of people are not antiwar/antiBush visit. You
have asked for evidence etc. Well here it is! Yes, I have read the article.
Have you? If so you will also have read that 36% would prefer him not to
come and a significant 21% did not know/had no views. This latter figure
alone suggests there are rather less "antis" than you would wish. Maybe
apathetic folk but certainly not strong "antis".
The Poll also reports that 47% consider the war justified; 41% unjustified
and 12% did not know/have no views.

While it has been an interesting debate I think it is now becoming a bit
tedious and very much off- topic. So its goodbye from me as he dusts off his
Stars& Stripes!!

Robert Griffith



Well done, Robert.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
My case being that a majority of people are not antiwar/antiBush visit.
You
have asked for evidence etc. Well here it is! Yes, I have read the
article.
Have you? If so you will also have read that 36% would prefer him not to
come and a significant 21% did not know/had no views. This latter figure
alone suggests there are rather less "antis" than you would wish. Maybe
apathetic folk but certainly not strong "antis".
The Poll also reports that 47% consider the war justified; 41%
unjustified
and 12% did not know/have no views.

While it has been an interesting debate I think it is now becoming a bit
tedious and very much off- topic. So its goodbye from me as he dusts off
his
Stars& Stripes!!

Robert Griffith



Well done, Robert.

Marc.

Thank you Marc. I'm backing out. We both know that the latest figures
support our stance. Its just a pity others lack the grace to say they may
just have misjudged the public mood on this.

Robert

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


"Mait001" wrote in message
...
My case being that a majority of people are not antiwar/antiBush
visit.
You
have asked for evidence etc. Well here it is! Yes, I have read the
article.
Have you? If so you will also have read that 36% would prefer him
not to come and a significant 21% did not know/had no views. This
latter figure alone suggests there are rather less "antis" than you
would wish. Maybe apathetic folk but certainly not strong "antis".
The Poll also reports that 47% consider the war justified; 41%
unjustified
and 12% did not know/have no views.

While it has been an interesting debate I think it is now becoming a
bit tedious and very much off- topic. So its goodbye from me as he
dusts off
his
Stars& Stripes!!

Robert Griffith



Well done, Robert.

Marc.

Thank you Marc. I'm backing out. We both know that the latest figures
support our stance.

Robs stance was

"Hear hear. I agree totally with you! Quite frankly it is wishful
thinking to try to argue that the "anti-war" feeling was that strong.
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. There are other ways of expressing
opinions to parading in the streets."

This was challenged on the grounds of dubious logic. As Rob was
referring to the mood at the time of the march in february, the polls
from february matter. You dismissed the poll earlier because you did not
know what questions were asked. Well in full

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...l-feb-2003.htm

Only 9% supported going to war without a fresh resolution.

Rob was frequently challeged to say what the poll showed that disagreed
with anything I said. He failed.

Rob was asked to justify calling me arrogant, he said it was because I
marked him 0/10 for intelligence, like you Rob cannot hold an argument
on usenet as it was someone else that made the 0/10 remark. Rob was
asked to therefore appologised for this, Rob did not. Rob is you ally in
this argument, oh dear!


just a pity others lack the grace to say they
may just have misjudged the public mood on this.

You formerly said you have no faith in polls, what brought about this
sudden Damascan conversion?

Methinks you are getting your knickers into something of a twist here. As
you are responding to what I said above to Marc, maybe you could enlighten
me by telling me exactly when I said I had no faith in polls?
As to the rest of what you say, this thread started off about the march
against Bush and, as the ICM Poll says, 43% are in favour, 21% are
sufficiently indifferent that they can't be bothered to express a view. End
of story!

Robert Griffith

In
rob wrote:

hank you Marc. I'm backing out. We both know

No you don't. This was a thread about demonstrations.


that the latest figures
support our stance. Its just a pity others lack the grace

People who say they're backing out, and seek to claim victory
at the same time have no grace.

to say they may
just have misjudged the public mood on this.



--
kedron