Originally posted by Atobe:
''try not to be rude to you, but somehow you seem to be begging for
the maximum grand slam that I normally reserve for OM - considering
that he is supposed to be one cut above most of us with his
self-acclaimed PhD, but display a hopeless cognitive sense of the
plights of average Singaporeans.
What have you to offer but simple stubborn stupidity that borders
on the realm of idiocy ?
In another thread, I said that "for a while I thought stupidissmart
is dumber than OM, now it seems that you have taken the cake and
eat it too" - it seems that you are fulfilling this point to a
'T'.
Even OM had walked away, but you seem to have taken the cudgel on
his behalf - it shows how dumb you can be even with numbers, let
alone economic theories and concepts.''
STILL WANT TO USE THE SAME OLD
DUMB TACTICS WHEREBY YOU PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE EH? OK, I'LL DO
THE SAME, EH MORON, JERK, CRETIN, ARROGANT BASTA8D, YOU ARE NOT
WORTH MY TIME TO KEEP INSULTING YOU OK? SO I WILL ONLY CUT AND
PASTE WHAT I SAID TO YOU IN AN EARLIER THREAD.
only a few people are willing to argue with you because you use
bombastic english to try to scare them, with or without facts to
back up your claim. People are fed up with the way you respond, and
that doesn't mean that you won an argument. It just means that
these people realize that there's much more important things in
life than to stay here and continue to argue with a arrogant,
senseless moron like you.
''You are probably the only person to give any whim of a
chance to the Liberal Democrats to form the next Government - as
seen from their performance over the last twenty years of UK
Politics.
Whether it is 2 or 3 UK political parties, was that the crux of the
matter, or was it the fact that in the UK Elections - 57 political
parties have diluted or spread the numbers of vote, which would
otherwise have helped the major parties to a different election
outcome ?''
YOU STUPID SON OF A D8G, FIRST
YOU MAKE THE BLOODY FOOL MISTAKE OF MISCALCULATING THE NUMBER OF
PARTIES THAT WERE IN THE 2005 ELECTIONS THEN YOU SAY WHAT DOES IT
MATTER THAT THERE WERE ONLY 2 OR 3 PARTIES? IT MATTERS, YOU DUMB
OLD GOOSE, IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING BRITISH POLITICS
THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE DUMB STATEMENTS LIKE THAT. ANYBODY WHO KNOWS
ANYTHING ABOUT BRITISH POLITICS KNOW ABOUT THE 3 MAJOR POLITICAL
PARTIES. YOU STUPID SINGAPOREAN BASTA8D, DON'T TALK ABOUT UK WHEN
ALL YOU KNOW IS ONLY ABOUT SINGAPORE. WHAT THE F888, WHAT DO YOU
MEAN THE 57 PARTIES HAVE SPREAD THE NUMBERS OF VOTES? DID YOU EVEN
BOTHER TO SEE THE FIGURES THAT YOU YOURSELF QUOTE FROM THE
WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE?
YOU CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT THE OUTCOME OF ELECTION WOULD BE
DIFFERENT BECAUSE FIRSTLY, THE VOTES OF THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES ARE
INSIGNIFICANT, SECONDLY, YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT PEOPLE
WILL VOTE FOR THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES IF THE 100 PARTIES DID NOT
INTERVENE, WHICH IS A WRONG ASSUMPTION. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT ON
ALL OF THE 100 OVER PARTIES, THEN YOU CAN TELL WHICH VOTERS FROM
WHICH PARTY WOULD VOTE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PARTY IF THE
INSIGNIFICANT PARTY DID NOT INTERVENE. BUT YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT,
SO YOU CAN'T SIMPLY ASSUME.
''Those insignificant parties have drawn away important
votes that would have bolstered those 3 major contenders;
especially when there are more then two parties contesting in every
UK constituencies.''
YOU BLO8DY IDI8T YOU, YOU NEVER
EVEN LOOKED AT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THAT THOSE SO CALLED
INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES HAVE, ALL 100 OVER OF THEM. YOU SEEM TO BE
MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THE
INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES DRAW AWAY IMPORTANT VOTES FROM THE 3 MAJOR
PARTIES, WHEN OUT OF THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES, MOST HARDLY GET ANY
VOTES? GO LOOK AT THE FIGURES AGAIN, YOU MORON.[/b]
[b]''Compared to Singapore, despite having an almost one-to-one
party contests - the incumbent Singapore Ruling Party could not
outperform the result of the UK Labor Party - even when it had
total control of the broadcast and print medias, PLUS the capacity
to gerrymeandering with political boundaries to dilute known areas
that support the Other Parties.. ''
YOU DON'T ANYTHING ABOUT THE UK
LABOUR PARTY, SO JUST SHUT THE F88K UP.
''Despite not being able to cope with economic theories and
concepts, you seem to be unable to cope with numbers as well.
If you had looked at the UK Election Results 2005 - (right to the
bottom of the site) - you will probably see the number of votes
that the lesser parties have taken away from the 3 major UK
political parties. Even when those votes did not even amount to
0.0% of the votes, it numbered from 500 plus to 9000
plus.''
YOU MORON, I HAVE BEEN TELLING
YOU THAT IT BLOODY DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE ONLY 3 MAJOR
POLITICAL PARTIES DOMINATE THE ELECTION. JUST BECAUSE THOSE OTHER
100 PARTIES EXIST, DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL BRITS ARE AWARE THAT THEY
EVEN EXIST. SOME OF THE PARTIES ARE REGIONAL AND SOME LOBBYING FOR
VERY SPECIFIC CAUSES SUCH AS SENIOR CITIZEN RIGHTS, COMMUNISM, ETC.
YOU STILL MADE THE MAJOR ERROR OF NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
PARTIES THAT HAD LESS THAN 500 VOTES.
''The total votes for the 3 front running parties amounted
to 24,316,595 out of a total of 27,110,727; and the number of votes
that went to those 'funny' parties amounted to 2,794,132.
Now will you reconsider your false statement that "the majority of
the Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of funny
parties just because they exist" ?
Seeing your track record, you are hell bent to salvage your
deflated saffron scent that only you can - and want to -
appreciate.''
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU LOOKING AT
THE ABSOLUTE FIGURES, LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES YOU IDIOT!
THE PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF VOTES FOR THOSE INSIGNIFICANT PARTIES IS SO
LITTLE. SECONDLY, THERE ARE 3 SCENARIOS WHICH CAN HAPPEN, (THIS
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SCENARIO WHEREBY THE VOTERS WOULD CHOOSE NOT
TO VOTE);
1) THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE 3
MAJOR PARTIES
OUTCOME: COULD STILL BE THE SAME OR DIFFERENT, CHANCES THAT IT
COULD BE DIFFERENT IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE OTHER 2 SCENARIOS
BELOW.
2) THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES AS AS WELL AS
ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINOR PARTY AMONG THE MORE THAN 100 OVER
MINOR PARTIES.
OUTCOME: THERE'S A BIGGER LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD STILL BE THE
SAME
3) THE VOTES COULD GO TO ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINOR PARTY AMONG
THE MORE THAN 100 OVER MINOR PARTIES
OUTCOME: THERE'S A BIGGER LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD STILL BE THE
SAME
SO WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND IT'S STILL A CONTEST BETWEEN THE 3
MAJOR PARTIES, WITH OR WITHOUT THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES. DO YOU
UNDERSTAND? IF SAY YOU VOTED FOR CONSERVATIVE AND YOU SAID THAT IF
THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES DIDN'T EXIST, THEN YOUR PARTY HAS A CHANCE
OF WINNING, THAT IS WRONG. BECAUSE, HOW SURE ARE YOU THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THOSE 100 OVER PARTIES WILL VOTE FOR
CONSERVATIVE ONLY? OR WHETHER THE VOTES WOULD BE SPREAD EVENLY
BETWEEN THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES? YOU DON'T KNOW RIGHT? AH...BUT THEN,
YOU LIKE TO CLAIM THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, BUT YOU ACTUALLY KNOW
NOTHING.
MOST BRITS ARE SMARTER THAN YOU, WAY WAY SMARTER AND SINGAPOREANS
TOO, THEY ARE MORE EVOLVED THAN YOU IN TERMS OF
THINKING.[/b]
[b]''Not that you are great with numbers, but your expertise at nit
picking had actually helped to identify that I had actually quoted
the 32.3% from the Conservative Party, and erroneously attribute it
to Labor.
You seem pretty much anxious to score points, but you had better be
up to your mark.''
IT'S BECAUSE MORON, YOU ARE
CARELESS AND STUPID, THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE DUMB MISTAKES LIKE
THAT.
