Interesting choice of pseudonym by the author - they appear to assume that the reader has not, in fact, read Alfred Bester's "Tiger, Tiger", and will not know that the Gully Foyle of the novel is a fundamentally dishonest and unpleasant character.
Saying the quiet part out loud and hoping no-one will notice?
Another sound dissection of the Brexit con trick, Mr Bear. Looking forward to the next chapter.
The "choice of pseudonym" was due to receiving a death threat against my children, which I'm sure you approve of, and removing all personal details from my account - swapping the name for the first fictional one to hand which was from the book I was reading at the time.
Perhaps ad hominem is not the correct route here - "I don't like his name so we can dismiss anything he says" is not the strongest argument is it Peter.
My apologies - my comment was not intended as a personal attack, merely a comment on what seemed to me a curious choice of pseudonym, and in no way a reason for dismissal of your text.
I will leave the debunking of your treatise to the original poster, who manages it far more eloquently than I, with footnotes and citations.
I'll take the apology at face value and thank you for it.
Sadly the fact that you are taking the mere existence of something that says it has debunked me, as evidence that they have, is not a good sign. From what I have seen from Bearlys three attempts thus far, he has not only failed to debunk any of them, but I also doubt their ability to put a dent in any of the remainder.
Well, you could explain why and how Bearly's dissection and debunking above is wrong. At the moment, it would appear that the only reason your original argument is convincing us that you've suppressed some reasonably important aspects of the whole picture in the original chapter. If this is not the case, feel free to explain why it is not and how your original argument does in fact, contrary to what Bearly tells us, account for them.
Or is this booky wook an attempt to keep the Brexit fairytale alive by a genuinely deluded individual who is so deep into cognitive dissonance he hasn't seen daylight in 9 years?
Your obvious annoyance at MY comments make it apparent that I have struck a nerve eh Gully? Seems so folks. Perhaps a hopeful sign that there is an awareness in him that he's utilising an alternative orifice to the one at the front of his face to spout his nonsense from ie the one located further south and rear facing.
And there we have it - taking pleasure in the idea of having annoyed me. You haven't by the way, so sorry for the disappointment.
Facts dont care about your feelings Jeni. They will still be facts even if you cry some more. So perhaps you should focus more on your own orifices than on mine.
The book is purely a collation of factual reality, all backed up with source material to verify. That you are upset by facts, doesn't change that they are facts.
Good grief Bear, no wonder you have resigned from your day job!!! You will be the most knowledgeable person in the UK re Brexit. Ever thought about running for office??
Well yes, reading my book will make him more informed, I agree. Shame from his efforts thus far though that his ability to actually read English seems to be in question.
Can you go into more detail regarding his "mistakes"? What are they, and how does correcting them change the outcome of the argument? Genuine request, by the way.
It’s not unhinged, but propaganda as per Bernays et seq.. Disturbing that it’s still being cranked out and those who do at this level of sophistication are entirely aware of its nature and purpose. Obviously this is my opinion and I may be wrong.
Well done, Bear, you've got Gully's piss boiling already. At this rate, by the time you've finished your debunking they'll deservedly call themselves Fully Boyled.
Aw sweetie. The hilarious thing is that, if you were remotely competent, you would see this "debunking" for what it is - the tears of someone desperate to prove that factual reality is wrong. I'm not going to lose a moments sleep from these efforts of Bearly, and in fact will enjoy broadcasting their efforts - as the more people try and fail to damage the list, the more people with brain cells see that the list is beyond contestation.
You have deeply and plainly explained this....so it is unfortunate that those involved can not be held financially accountable... as so far it all tracks down to .... money
Well that's rather hurtful and uncalled for. I'll have you know that my competence with remotes is legendary. It's spill chuckers I have wifficulty dith. Chill spuckers.. chull speckers.. oh buggrit
Is this all that you're gonna do with all 75? Point to a doppelganger forecast that in no way matches the reality of trade since we left, shout 4-8% GDP and then claim victory?
I did enjoy the bit where you complained about using forecasts in one paragraph, and then championed them a couple of paragraphs further down, just like you did in claim 1.
Yet again a very poor show. You really are wasting everyone's time with this garbage. But hey at least it's keeping you off the streets before you get called in for dinner eh.
Interesting choice of pseudonym by the author - they appear to assume that the reader has not, in fact, read Alfred Bester's "Tiger, Tiger", and will not know that the Gully Foyle of the novel is a fundamentally dishonest and unpleasant character.
Saying the quiet part out loud and hoping no-one will notice?
Another sound dissection of the Brexit con trick, Mr Bear. Looking forward to the next chapter.
The "choice of pseudonym" was due to receiving a death threat against my children, which I'm sure you approve of, and removing all personal details from my account - swapping the name for the first fictional one to hand which was from the book I was reading at the time.
Perhaps ad hominem is not the correct route here - "I don't like his name so we can dismiss anything he says" is not the strongest argument is it Peter.
My apologies - my comment was not intended as a personal attack, merely a comment on what seemed to me a curious choice of pseudonym, and in no way a reason for dismissal of your text.
I will leave the debunking of your treatise to the original poster, who manages it far more eloquently than I, with footnotes and citations.
I'll take the apology at face value and thank you for it.
Sadly the fact that you are taking the mere existence of something that says it has debunked me, as evidence that they have, is not a good sign. From what I have seen from Bearlys three attempts thus far, he has not only failed to debunk any of them, but I also doubt their ability to put a dent in any of the remainder.
For someone who is quick to call out a perceived ad hominem slur, you seem to be fine with with handing them out.
Please come.with better responses than, "No, you are wrong and I am right." Cite and link your sources.
The book defends everything I've written within it. Includes sources for everything said. What is it that you think I need to do, more than that?
Well, you could explain why and how Bearly's dissection and debunking above is wrong. At the moment, it would appear that the only reason your original argument is convincing us that you've suppressed some reasonably important aspects of the whole picture in the original chapter. If this is not the case, feel free to explain why it is not and how your original argument does in fact, contrary to what Bearly tells us, account for them.
Does Mr Foyle know he's talking absolute shite?
Or is this booky wook an attempt to keep the Brexit fairytale alive by a genuinely deluded individual who is so deep into cognitive dissonance he hasn't seen daylight in 9 years?
A shame that you're too scared to read it isn't it. Is the bad man with the facts and reality upsetting you?
Scared to read it?🤣
Hardly. I don't waste my time with tripe.
Making judgements about something you haven't read, applying your own bigoted opinions to the contents. How very stereotypically remain voter of you.
A shame that you choose to remain ignorant of reality. Again so very remain voter.
Your obvious annoyance at MY comments make it apparent that I have struck a nerve eh Gully? Seems so folks. Perhaps a hopeful sign that there is an awareness in him that he's utilising an alternative orifice to the one at the front of his face to spout his nonsense from ie the one located further south and rear facing.
And there we have it - taking pleasure in the idea of having annoyed me. You haven't by the way, so sorry for the disappointment.
Facts dont care about your feelings Jeni. They will still be facts even if you cry some more. So perhaps you should focus more on your own orifices than on mine.
So shoot me Gully, I take pleasure in picking low hanging fruit 🤣🤣🤣
The word "facts" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The book is purely a collation of factual reality, all backed up with source material to verify. That you are upset by facts, doesn't change that they are facts.
"Facts" based on assumptions are not facts!
The fact that you can only respond with insults tells me the old saying must be true....
Which assumptions are those Lloyd? Please, elaborate.
Good grief Bear, no wonder you have resigned from your day job!!! You will be the most knowledgeable person in the UK re Brexit. Ever thought about running for office??
Well yes, reading my book will make him more informed, I agree. Shame from his efforts thus far though that his ability to actually read English seems to be in question.
Very nicely done, Bear. Even I could understand this 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Shame that he made so many mistakes then isn't it, and a shame that your ability to understand doesn't extend far enough to know that he's wrong.
Wow, he sure hit a nerve, didn’t he.
Just keep on being petulant rather than trying to show where he got things wrong, eh?
Can you go into more detail regarding his "mistakes"? What are they, and how does correcting them change the outcome of the argument? Genuine request, by the way.
It’s not unhinged, but propaganda as per Bernays et seq.. Disturbing that it’s still being cranked out and those who do at this level of sophistication are entirely aware of its nature and purpose. Obviously this is my opinion and I may be wrong.
I would politely suggest that you read it for yourself - as if this article is anything to go by, I question Bearlys ability to read English.
I question your ability to understand facts!
Well done, Bear, you've got Gully's piss boiling already. At this rate, by the time you've finished your debunking they'll deservedly call themselves Fully Boyled.
Aw sweetie. The hilarious thing is that, if you were remotely competent, you would see this "debunking" for what it is - the tears of someone desperate to prove that factual reality is wrong. I'm not going to lose a moments sleep from these efforts of Bearly, and in fact will enjoy broadcasting their efforts - as the more people try and fail to damage the list, the more people with brain cells see that the list is beyond contestation.
You have deeply and plainly explained this....so it is unfortunate that those involved can not be held financially accountable... as so far it all tracks down to .... money
So now we know. Delusional and so deep down the rabbit hole he's in denial of reality. Poor wee Gully.
This guy is tiring as fuck, Jesus
The lady doth protests too much, methinks
Well that's rather hurtful and uncalled for. I'll have you know that my competence with remotes is legendary. It's spill chuckers I have wifficulty dith. Chill spuckers.. chull speckers.. oh buggrit
Again how very disappointing.
Is this all that you're gonna do with all 75? Point to a doppelganger forecast that in no way matches the reality of trade since we left, shout 4-8% GDP and then claim victory?
I did enjoy the bit where you complained about using forecasts in one paragraph, and then championed them a couple of paragraphs further down, just like you did in claim 1.
Yet again a very poor show. You really are wasting everyone's time with this garbage. But hey at least it's keeping you off the streets before you get called in for dinner eh.
Good luck with the next one!