Bertie
From your reply it does seem that you prefer Joint Authority.
Unless your party (which is not split, of course) has either a card up its sleeve or a rabbit under the hat.
As Smithsonian keeps pointing out, we are now down to two choices/
I’ve had enough of your obfuscation Bertie. I don’t particularly enjoy talking to people who don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Enjoy your life under Joint Authority.
bertie I don’t particularly enjoy debating with people who make unnecessary assumptions.
Peculiar statement. It is a valid research technique to postulate a hypothesis, with a view to proving or disproving it.
If you aren’t in the DUP fair enough, but we are debating whether there is a split in the DUP along the lines we have been discussing.
Given the views that you have expressed is there any reason why one should not assume that you are representative of a group people who might have supported the DUP.
If so your thinking would be of particular relevance to the topic at hand.
How many people (% of electorate) would prefer joint authority rather than an Assembly with Martin McGuinness as DFM?
“I don’t particularly enjoy debating with people who make unnecessary assumptions.
Peculiar statement. It is a valid research technique to postulate a hypothesis, with a view to proving or disproving it. ”
That isn’t uneccasry. I actually meant presumtions as in me being a member of the DUP as all he had to do was ask if I was. He took it for granted. He was not putting it to the test.
Being representative of a group that might support the DUP is not the same as it being my party.
“How many people (% of electorate) would prefer joint authority rather than an Assembly with Martin McGuinness as DFM? ”
I wouldn’t know. but I haven’t expressed a preference either.
I am always suprised that there is any desire for any sort of local assembly.
Smithsonian and joeCanuck,
You guys seem to be unaware of (or have forgotten) one of the most useful pieces of advice when blogging: Never feed the trolls.
I’ve been catching up on some reading, recently. Most pleasantly surprised by John Drennan’s latest opus from Gill and Macmillan, Cute Hoors and Pious Protestors… It’s early days yet, but I was struck by this paragraph, part of a dissection of Fianna Fail near the beginning: One of the more fatal consequences of our colonial [...] read our review »
A silly media row about racism just had to figure in the riots’ post mortem. Was the Tudor history expert David Starkey racist on Newsnight when he said: The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion. And black and white, boy and girl, operate in [...] read our review »
Ed Moloney’s Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland has received considerable attention in the press and in the public realm since its publication earlier this year. Although the book relates the experiences of the Provisional IRA’s Brendan Hughes and the PUP/UVF’s David Ervine, much of the discussion has focused on Hughes’ stories [...] read our review »
Bertie
From your reply it does seem that you prefer Joint Authority.
Unless your party (which is not split, of course) has either a card up its sleeve or a rabbit under the hat.
As Smithsonian keeps pointing out, we are now down to two choices/
bertie
In that case, the answer is B) joint authority.
I suspect that there will be legislation to protect minority groupings and we will have recourse to the Law courts in Dublin for any flagrant abuses.
“Bertie
From your reply it does seem that you prefer Joint Authority. ”
Why?
“Unless your party (which is not split, of course) has either a card up its sleeve or a rabbit under the hat. ”
What party is this?
I’ve had enough of your obfuscation Bertie. I don’t particularly enjoy talking to people who don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Enjoy your life under Joint Authority.
regards
I am really interested in why you appear to take it for granted that I am in the DUP.
my last post was made before seing your last.
” I don’t particularly enjoy talking to people who don’t have the courage of their convictions.”
In what way do I not have the courage of my convictions? I don’t find terrorists in government and I am not going to endorse it.
And I don’t particularly enjoy debating with people who make unecessary assumptions.
bertie
I don’t particularly enjoy debating with people who make unnecessary assumptions.
Peculiar statement. It is a valid research technique to postulate a hypothesis, with a view to proving or disproving it.
If you aren’t in the DUP fair enough, but we are debating whether there is a split in the DUP along the lines we have been discussing.
Given the views that you have expressed is there any reason why one should not assume that you are representative of a group people who might have supported the DUP.
If so your thinking would be of particular relevance to the topic at hand.
How many people (% of electorate) would prefer joint authority rather than an Assembly with Martin McGuinness as DFM?
Smithsonian
“I don’t particularly enjoy debating with people who make unnecessary assumptions.
Peculiar statement. It is a valid research technique to postulate a hypothesis, with a view to proving or disproving it. ”
That isn’t uneccasry. I actually meant presumtions as in me being a member of the DUP as all he had to do was ask if I was. He took it for granted. He was not putting it to the test.
Being representative of a group that might support the DUP is not the same as it being my party.
“How many people (% of electorate) would prefer joint authority rather than an Assembly with Martin McGuinness as DFM? ”
I wouldn’t know. but I haven’t expressed a preference either.
I am always suprised that there is any desire for any sort of local assembly.
Smithsonian and joeCanuck,
You guys seem to be unaware of (or have forgotten) one of the most useful pieces of advice when blogging:
Never feed the trolls.