"In any case, how on earth would a party be able to predict how the count would go before the campaign had finished. To claim they could is just a joke."

Yet it was done on the basis of preference deals being adhered to; and on that basis Leon Ashby would have been elected after 35 counts; this relatively simple process was done using Antony Green's own calculator with an assumption about the primary vote received by Leon.

I can't post the calculations which were done as the cascade of preferences eliminated candidates over the 35 counts because it is on excel.

Anyway Agenda 21 is just a harmless UN thought bubble according to your sanguine view. I suppose you could say the same about AGW yet here we are. You have been given links showing the UN source, that the Federal parliament has dealt with it and a list of local councils which have specific reference to Agenda 21 sustainability principles.

Your position on Agenda 21 is disingenuous Agro; and patronising; I'm assuming you don't work in Agenda 21 programs.

It seems that whenever cohenite gets caught out with something clearly wrong, he simply makes stuff up in the hope no one will notice. Here we have the latest effort. Despite Mr Cox writing in his article that it was preferences 93-98, cohenite (intimately related to Mr Cox I might add) tries to claim that it wasn’t preferences that Mr Cox meant, but something else. Now we have the stupidity of an attempt to claim that the NCTCS Party was able to predict the preference distribution rounds on the basis of the preference deals.

Such a claim is clearly the depths of stupidity. For example, a mere 14 votes in the WA Senate was the difference between the Shooters and Fishers and Greens getting elected versus PUP and Labour and no-one could have predicted the result prior to the election.

It is obvious that nothing that cohenite, or his alter ego Mr Cox, writes should be accepted as having any basis in reality.

You're an angry person Agro. I said the prediction was based on a schedule of expected flow of preferences and using Antony Green's formula. You know, just like using an AGW model with the parameters factored in. In any event PUP did not play and Sarah 2 dads got in instead. No doubt you're ecstatic about that.

As for the 93-98 preferences, ok that could have been made clearer; but go away and count the candidates in other states and don't be such a pompous buffoon. As is described plainly in the article preference swapping is an INTER-STATE process.

Why would I have to lie or prevaricate when I'm dealing with you?

cohenite, so finally after denying that the 93-98 preferencing for the ALP claim was wrong, you understand that it was wrong. But it took three attempts of pointing it out to you. So what else is wrong in the articles you write and the comments you make? If it takes you so long to work out that this claim was wrong, why should anyone trust any other claim you make?

This thread is a perfect demonstration that you are just bluster and are ignorant about most of the topics you write about.

You see Agro; you are not an honest commentator; you have an emotional investment in this AGW scam. It makes you act like a child: look you cry, he was wrong about this, that must mean he's wrong about everything!

How old are you?

And the point wasn't incorrect. You assumed I was talking about the number of candidates in SA when I was talking about the number elsewhere. Were there more candidates in any other state then in SA Agro?

In fact you were wrong Agro. But that doesn't mean I think you are wrong about everything, just wrong about AGW.

cohenite, it is not just a case that you were wrong here, but the demonstration that you are frequently wrong. More importantly when shown to be wrong, you reaction is to deny it and bluster.

As to the preference numbers, I immediately realised this had to be from another state, NSW I am guessing but I haven’t checked. However, the numbers came up in reference to Leon Ashby, who was standing in South Australia. This was a demonstration of how careless you are with ‘facts’. You have repeatedly indulged in ‘fact’ substitution. If the real ‘fact’ doesn’t serve your purpose, you put another one in its place, or make one up.

I am pointing out a pattern of behaviour that you indulge in over and over on this forum. It is why I don’t take anything you write seriously – because you can’t be trusted.

Given the way you continuously bully any posters on this site with whom you disagree (your post above is a good example), I don’t think you should be allowed to make up your own version of reality. It is a public service really.