Starmer's vision quest

[monkers]

So this reply to DB originally mentioning the form wasn’t arguing? OK, it seemed to me you were suggesting he was wrong which would be considered arguing by most people.

In your opinion, but I hadn't realised that you were appointed to speak for most people. Good to know.

 

[monkers]

Do ever use any other method of trying to argue? One for the AI fails thread. In fact, you should go in there 🙂

It was an AI fail. It gave the date for the digital version rather than the previous paper based version. But try to remember that it was me that flagged the error.

The interesting part, at least to me, was that it was everyday free Copilot that made the error, and Copilot Pro that debunked it.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Nope, it's just that I have a life outside of his forum.

Isn't it usual to quote sources when making such a bold statement?

 

[briantrumpet]

Two things about this reply:

1) "I disagree" is an argument, if you then back it up with opinions.
2) I can only surmise that you were arguing in favour of WASPI, as you were disagreeing with Pross's view that they didn't deserve compensation.

 

[briantrumpet]

Isn't it usual to quote sources when making such a bold statement?

Normally Stevo asks for more information. Maybe he's had a change of approach.

 

[monkers]

Two things about this reply:

1) "I disagree" is an argument, if you then back it up with opinions.
2) I can only surmise that you were arguing in favour of WASPI, as you were disagreeing with Pross's view that they didn't deserve compensation.

View attachment 9470

No. I'm at the point of saying to people ''learn to read''. ''I strongly disagree'' with the government assertion that there's no money to pay for pensions and benefits - and I clearly stated to Pross ''for the things on your list'' - rather than things on my list.

This is based on the fact that the account contains about £50bn more than its protected minimum. So yes there is money for the things that Pross was arguing for.

 

[Pross]

In your opinion, but I hadn't realised that you were appointed to speak for most people. Good to know.

So you don’t consider (incorrectly) telling someone they are wrong is arguing?

As I’m not appointed to speak for most people I asked your chosen source of proof instead.

 

[briantrumpet]

No. I'm at the point of saying to people ''learn to read''. ''I strongly disagree'' with the government assertion that there's no money to pay for pensions and benefits - and I clearly stated to Pross ''for the things on your list'' - rather than things on my list.

This is based on the fact that the account contains about £50bn more than its protected minimum. So yes there is money for the things that Pross was arguing for.

I'll let others decide whether they also were under the impression you were arguing for WASPI and if my reading comprehension is poor.

BTW, it would have been nice if you had apologised to DB for not checking your first AI source and telling him he was wrong, or even thanked him for his expertise when your error was pointed out. And yes, it was your error in posting it here without checking.

 

[monkers]

So you don’t consider (incorrectly) telling someone they are wrong is arguing?

As I’m not appointed to speak for most people I asked your chosen source of proof instead.

You are making stuff up. I never once said ''you were wrong''. I never repeated any ''assertion''. You produced evidence from Hansard. I called it ''a good catch'', and it was.

The further evidence that copilot was wrong was provided by me. I wouldn't call that arguing. Now we are arguing over the nature of an argument. Sometimes this place goes beyond being ridiculous.

 

[Pross]

You are making stuff up. I never once said ''you were wrong''. I never repeated. You produced evidence from Hansard. I called it ''a good catch'', and it was.

The further evidence that copilot was wrong was provided by me. I wouldn't call that arguing.

I didn’t produce anything.

DB originally said the form was in place in the 90s. Your first response to that (quoting his post) incorrectly claimed it didn’t exist until 2012. At that point you didn’t say anything like “are you sure because I just asked Copilot and it said this” you just stated it as though it was a fact and that the original post was wrong.

 

[monkers]

I didn’t produce anything.

DB originally said the form was in place in the 90s. Your first response to that (quoting his post) incorrectly claimed it did exist until 2012. At that point you didn’t say anything like “are you sure because I just asked Copilot and it said this” you just stated it as though it was a fact and that the original post was wrong.

You are quite right, It was DB - my error - not AI.

 

[Pblakeney]

So you don’t consider (incorrectly) telling someone they are wrong is arguing?

As I’m not appointed to speak for most people I asked your chosen source of proof instead.

View attachment 9475

View attachment 9476

Take the hint.

 

[Mr Celine]

Also married men received the married man's personal tax allowance.

And married women could opt to pay a lower rate of NI, the 'small stamp'.

If a married couple had children and the husband died the widow could claim Widowed Mothers Allowance. There was no Widowed Fathers Allowance. This remained the case until 2002, when Widowed Parents Allowance was introduced.

 

[CXRAndy]