May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, aright said:

Newsweek, Time, the FT and occasionally just to keep up to date with the social politics of the Remainers  ...the Beano.

It only works well if you use it first, using it second makes it seem as though you couldn't think of anything else so you copied somebody else's comment - The Dandy would have worked well and fit perfectly well.

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

One of the basic flaws inherent in many Brexiteers is their inability to interpret and assimilate data and fact - a percentage of the DECIDED vote (those who have made up their minds) is NOT a percentage of the TOTAL vote (everyone who was asked in the survey.

 

Is the reality of what was written now slowly starting to permeate the fog!

49.551346%

49.55135%

49.5514%

49.551%

49.55%

49.6%

50%

 

Are all correct. It just depends how anal you are.

 

Now what were the 2016 referendum results to 3 decimal places or two significant figures?

 

On my desk by 09.00 tomorrow morning. Stop chewing boy!

[aright]

4 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It only works well if you use it first, using it second makes it seem as though you couldn't think of anything else so you copied somebody else's comment - The Dandy would have worked well and fit perfectly well.

If you say so.

[baansgr]

Just now, Grouse said:

49.551346%

49.55135%

49.5514%

49.551%

49.55%

49.6%

50%

 

Are all correct. It just depends how anal you are.

 

Now what were the 2016 referendum results to 3 decimal places or two significant figures?

 

On my desk by 09.00 tomorrow morning. Stop chewing boy!

Exactly, so not half the vote as their headline states, typical bad reporting from this conic

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

Newsweek, Time, the FT and occasionally just to keep up to date with the social politics of the Remainers  ...the Beano.

Well at least you had a shot!

 

I think it would generally accepted that Time and Newsweek are inferior to The Economist. The FT is good but less of a leisurely read. There are many terrific specialised journals such as Nat Geo, Nature, Flight and of course Viz. But for all round excellence The Economist is unbeatable!

[aright]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

49.551346%

49.55135%

49.5514%

49.551%

49.55%

49.6%

50%

 

Are all correct. It just depends how anal you are.

 

Now what were the 2016 referendum results to 3 decimal places or two significant figures?

 

On my desk by 09.00 tomorrow morning. Stop chewing boy!

Anyone can come up with that figure by using a double headed calculator......but you can't fool us 

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

Anyone can come up with that figure by using a double headed calculator......but you can't fool us 

Actually Excel is the thing ?

 

 

[aright]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Well at least you had a shot!

 

I think it would generally accepted that Time and Newsweek are inferior to The Economist. The FT is good but less of a leisurely read. There are many terrific specialised journals such as Nat Geo, Nature, Flight and of course Viz. But for all round excellence The Economist is unbeatable!

Not the "Generally accepted" chestnut again. Who told you, Alf and Harry down the Feathers.

The Economist gears itself to providing remedies for the worlds problems and uses lots of economic jargon to make it appear serious. That's not what I want........I would prefer the bare facts so I can make up my own mind.

It's ideology masquerading as journalism.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, aright said:

Not the "Generally accepted" chestnut again. Who told you, Alf and Harry down the Feathers.

The Economist gears itself to providing remedies for the worlds problems and uses lots of economic jargon to make it appear serious. That's not what I want........I would prefer the bare facts so I can make up my own mind.

It's ideology masquerading as journalism.

What is the ideology of The Economist apart from good sense?

[metisdead]

Some offensive posts and replies have been removed. 

[simoh1490]

24 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Where in the article does it stae decided vote, and be careful of the insults, dont want to be getting warnings and suspensions again do you

...it does not state that explicitly, it doesn't need to,  broadsheets rely on readers having some ability to interpret statistics and what was written, for goodness sake, look at the numbers, get a calculator and work it out, it's not rocket science. Sadly however, this episode is a prime example of the inability of many to comprehend facts and figures, unless they are written in single syllables in the most basic of formats, otherwise it's viewed as being bad journalism, misleading fact etc etc.

 

Warnings and suspensions....it's been many many months and it's staying that way too!

[aright]

15 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What is the ideology of The Economist apart from good sense?

Good sense is what tells us the world is flat.  

[Grouse]

33 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Exactly, so not half the vote as their headline states, typical bad reporting from this conic

Oh, so we've got a clever one have we? Not 'arf!

 

so if it's not 1/2, kindly tell the class what is the correct fraction. I have a plimsole ready!

[Grouse]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Oh, so we've got a clever one have we? Not 'arf!

 

so if it's not 1/2, kindly tell the class what is the correct fraction. I have a plimsole ready!

Well, I'm sure you boys used Euclid's algorithm and found out that 497 has factors of both 7 and 71; 1003 has 17 as a factor which is fascinating!?

 

So whereas neither are prime numbers, the most accurate fractional representation of the share is 497/1003 or 50% ?

[aright]

36 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Well, I'm sure you boys used Euclid's algorithm and found out that 497 has factors of both 7 and 71; 1003 has 17 as a factor which is fascinating!?

 

So whereas neither are prime numbers, the most accurate fractional representation of the share is 497/1003 or 50% ?

Absolute bull dust!  If you use the Denumerability of the Rational Numbers Theorem the outcome is completely different. I personally would use Desargues Theorem because you get the % in French.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, aright said:

Absolute bull dust!  If you use the Denumerability of the Rational Numbers Theorem the outcome is completely different. I personally would use Desargues Theorem because you get the % in French.

It's all happening on another thread! Turn the lights off on your way out!

[baansgr]

55 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Well, I'm sure you boys used Euclid's algorithm and found out that 497 has factors of both 7 and 71; 1003 has 17 as a factor which is fascinating!?

 

So whereas neither are prime numbers, the most accurate fractional representation of the share is 497/1003 or 50% ?

No, used the Casio SB-73 which dosnt come up with 50%. Sorry guys, you have lost this one, just admit, the comic reported figures incorrectly. Time to move on. 

[beautifulthailand99]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

49.551346%

49.55135%

49.5514%

49.551%

49.55%

49.6%

50%

 

Are all correct. It just depends how anal you are.

 

Now what were the 2016 referendum results to 3 decimal places or two significant figures?

 

On my desk by 09.00 tomorrow morning. Stop chewing boy!

The percentage I seem to remember that wannabe EU pensioner and German wife Farage said he would want a second vote if that close. 

[beautifulthailand99]

Anyway news from Ireland from St Theresa May - what does Brexit mean ..........one almighty expensive fudge that pleases nobody and leaves everybody worse off than we were. Britain certainly knows how to embarrass itself to the world. If NI gets to effectively stay in the single market then why not the rest of the Union. Anways the DUP is not having it - so folk better return to their barstools and prepare for a Corbyn government. 

[SheungWan]

Stand by for Theresa May announcement. 2 minutes.

Edited December 4, 2017 by SheungWan

[melvinmelvin]

has she sorted the border issue already?

 

[melvinmelvin]

or maybe throwing in the towel

 

[beautifulthailand99]

Probably a back me or sack me ultimatum. Knives are being sharpened. 

 

Nigel Farage

 

✔@Nigel_Farage

 

This UK Government’s bitter betrayal of 17.4 million people today is a concession too far, for it will lead to endless problems in Scotland and it damages the integrity of the United Kingdom.

1:51 PM - Dec 4, 2017

Edited December 4, 2017 by beautifulthailand99

[mommysboy]

Think of a deal that nobody would have voted for; a deal that really suits nobody, is expensive, divisive socially, regionally, and nationally; championed by a weak government that is at the mercy of the tiniest of parties, and compromised by the hard right of its fraternity.  And one that has created the uncertainty and insecurity that the business world hates.

 

Now compare that bugger's muddle with what is shaping up now! 

 

Snap!

[aright]

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Think of a deal that nobody would have voted for; a deal that really suits nobody, is expensive, divisive socially, regionally, and nationally; championed by a weak government that is at the mercy of the tiniest of parties, and compromised by the hard right of its fraternity.  

My best guess is the European Union.

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Think of a deal that nobody would have voted for; a deal that really suits nobody, is expensive, divisive socially, regionally, and nationally; championed by a weak government that is at the mercy of the tiniest of parties, and compromised by the hard right of its fraternity.  And one that has created the uncertainty and insecurity that the business world hates.

 

Now compare that bugger's muddle with what is shaping up now! 

 

Snap!

3 minutes ago, aright said:

My best guess is the European Union.

So you too think that the EU is compromised by the "hard right of its fraternity". I agree. The right wing politics of Poland and Hungary are certainly a major obstacle to a more humane EU. Thanks for sharing your concern.

 

[AlexRich]

It looks like the inevitable deal will be hated by everybody in parts, just different parts depending on what side of the argument you sit. What we had before June 2016 will be seen as vastly superior to what we will get when all is done and dusted.

 

Bad enough as that is, we might well end up with a Marxist government adding insult to injury, after the right wing Tories that support a hard line Brexit tear their party apart. 

[simoh1490]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

There weren't any facts in that article anyway. The comments were far more interesting and truthful.

497 people wanting a second referendum versus 343 people not wanting one, sounds like a pretty big fact to me, understandable though how you would not want to see it!

[melvinmelvin]

 

how about a link to this article?

 

[SheungWan]

12 hours ago, aright said:

Newsweek, Time, the FT and occasionally just to keep up to date with the social politics of the Remainers  ...the Beano.

 

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well at least you had a shot!

 

I think it would generally accepted that Time and Newsweek are inferior to The Economist. The FT is good but less of a leisurely read. There are many terrific specialised journals such as Nat Geo, Nature, Flight and of course Viz. But for all round excellence The Economist is unbeatable!

Newsweek is just a website now. Time a general magazine that doesn't even pretend to systematically cover economic issues. There is little to indicate that any of the forum Hard Brexiteers regularly read the FT. The cheap charlies wouldn't pay the subscription or buy it (weekday 140 baht, weekend 150 baht). No. When it comes to this thread its always the free tabloids mirroring the Brexiteer agenda. Their sole objection to The Economist is focussed on the anti-Brexit stance of many of its contributors. Nothing else at all. Nothing.