Rousing defence of Kenwrong

[DENNIS STEVENS]

There you go mate.

What's your query? "DK was a bad option - that's why less than half of those asked voted for it." Seems a straightforward comment to me.

 

[chicoazul]

What's your query? "DK was a bad option - that's why less than half of those asked voted for it." Seems a straightforward comment to me.

I've just pulled that apart above mate.

 

[davek]

I've just been doing some PM private polling in the absence of one in the thread.

I have the results:


Kenwrong 32

Kenwright 2

 

[NeoNaoNeo]

don't get your arguments here at all chico. you go from one moment saying that everton will get relegated and die if they stay at goodison, then say about how we have a great chairman who has improved us. how will not moving from goodison make this great chairman and great side suddenly get relegated? you're making absolutely no sense. it's a non-argument.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Do you think there would have been media coverage of such a thing?

You're flagging here mate.

I see, you are now taking anything that's not in the media as a "fact". I can see your point, considering most of the [Poor language removed] in the media we know isn't fact at all. But no I think it's you who's flagging a bit. It seems other peoples opinions, are wild assumptions and accusations, however, when presented with facts you choose which ones to believe & then add in your own assumptions & wild accusations which you consider as facts, for some reason.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Evidence please.

DK inquiry.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

I see, you are now taking anything that's not in the media as a "fact". I can see your point, considering most of the [Poor language removed] in the media we know isn't fact at all. But no I think it's you who's flagging a bit. It seems other peoples opinions, are wild assumptions and accusations, however, when presented with facts you choose which ones to believe & then add in your own assumptions & wild accusations which you consider as facts, for some reason.

The pot calling the kettle g*y.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

DK inquiry.

The usual big fat none-answer. Cheers.

 

[chicoazul]

I've just been doing some PM private polling in the absence of one in the thread.

I have the results:


Kenwrong 32

Kenwright 2

You havent got 34 friends you blatant liar.

don't get your arguments here at all chico. you go from one moment saying that everton will get relegated and die if they stay at goodison, then say about how we have a great chairman who has improved us. how will not moving from goodison make this great chairman and great side suddenly get relegated? you're making absolutely no sense. it's a non-argument.

Read back mate, that's a lame summary trying to allude to your twisted viewpoint mate you've done there.

I see, you are now taking anything that's not in the media as a "fact". I can see your point, considering most of the [Poor language removed] in the media we know isn't fact at all. But no I think it's you who's flagging a bit. It seems other peoples opinions, are wild assumptions and accusations, however, when presented with facts you choose which ones to believe & then add in your own assumptions & wild accusations which you consider as facts, for some reason.

That really doesn't make much sense pal. I think my point stands to reason, if there was a serious offer on the table the media would report it - there's been a couple of false media reports but genuine interest would certainly attract regular column inches.

The lack of which confirms my point.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Utterly utterly utterly bogus. More voted for than did against. So by your 'rat in a red hot sh!t house' logic, the "No" voters are even less valid than the yessers. (*)

I don't claim that any of the voters are more or less valid than the others. Simply that it's inaccurate to claim that the majority of Evertonians want DK based upon a vote where not even a majority of those offered a vote supported the proposal. I don't believe that's an accurate extrapolation of the figures.
I'm not claiming the non-voters as being on the "no" side, but I think it's fair to comment that less than half of the targeted electorate supporting DK might be viewed by some as a less than resounding endorsement.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

I don't claim that any of the voters are more or less valid than the others. Simply that it's inaccurate to claim that the majority of Evertonians want DK based upon a vote where not even a majority of those offered a vote supported the proposal. I don't believe that's an accurate extrapolation of the figures.
I'm not claiming the non-voters as being on the "no" side, but I think it's fair to comment that less than half of the targeted electorate supporting DK might be viewed by some as a less than resounding endorsement.

What were they to do though? The overall biggest majority was the 'yes' group. Granted the No + the dont Know were larger, but that can be flipped to say the yes + the dont know were massive compared to the No's.
Your point looked disingenuous and that is why I had to post what I did. It appears to me that you (amongst others) are not playing fair. It is very difficult to listen to and get onside with speeches about fairness, equality and honour from a bunch that do not practice what they preach. Please pardon any edge you perceive from this or any post, I am simply pointing out the interpretation. (PS you are one of them that is not an uber belter.)

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

The alternative choice was to stay at Goodison, that's surely clear is it not?

Thats weird logic there Dennis, you could twist it and say that it wasnt that hideous that the vast majority didn't vote against it.

Again, incorrect assertions.

I didn't get a ballot paper - is that what it said : DK or GP?

You could twist it the way you suggest, but would that not be claiming that not voting equates to a vote in favour?

I'm not making any false assertions. The vote was to decide whether the Evertonians asked were in favour of proceeding with DK - less than half of those asked voted in favour - some people subsequently claim that this means the majority of Evertonians are in favour. Please explain how that is an accurate assertion on the part of those who are pro-DK.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

I'm not making any false assertions. The vote was to decide whether the Evertonians asked were in favour of proceeding with DK - less than half of those asked voted in favour - some people subsequently claim that this means the majority of Evertonians are in favour. Please explain how that is an accurate assertion on the part of those who are pro-DK.

You live in Britain with the 'first past the post' system for voting in Government? Have you just turned 18?

 

[chicoazul]

I don't claim that any of the voters are more or less valid than the others. Simply that it's inaccurate to claim that the majority of Evertonians want DK based upon a vote where not even a majority of those offered a vote supported the proposal. I don't believe that's an accurate extrapolation of the figures.
I'm not claiming the non-voters as being on the "no" side, but I think it's fair to comment that less than half of the targeted electorate supporting DK might be viewed by some as a less than resounding endorsement.

Neither did those people vote against the proposal. Most big scale votes don't suffer high participation. But the ones that did vote, they voted for the move. Which, incidentally, made us the first club to ballot its fans (twice now) on a ground move. Pretty nice of Uncle Bill wouldn't you say.

Which goes back to your earlier point where I pointed out that your assertion that it was because DK was so bad that they didnt vote was flawed.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

The usual big fat none-answer. Cheers.

That's what the club said at the inquiry, if you're arsed check it. if not don't carp.