The Forum > General Discussion > Australia's 48th Parliament What To Expect
Australia's 48th Parliament What To Expect
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Page 16
- 17
-
- All
Posted by John Daysh, Sunday, 3 August 2025 12:32:30 PM
| |
"You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, "
You made that admission of error in relation to my comments about Brexit. Nothing to do with your errors over CO2 which I let you get away with out of sympathy for your mental struggles with the facts. I find it very disappointing that, after admitting you got it wrong on my Brexit comments, you are now back-tracking Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 August 2025 1:31:31 PM
| |
No, mhaze, that’s fiction.
When I wrote “You didn’t use those exact phrases, true,” it wasn’t an admission on Brexit. It was me saying you hadn’t literally typed “GDP boost,” while pointing to your actual wording: “Brexit allowed the UK to negotiate outside the EU and get a materially better trade deal with the US. Even the rabid anti-Brexiteers are now towing the line.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371235 That’s a broad “Brexit win” claim. When challenged, you shrank it to: “Britain is paying less in tariffs and that’s a victory for Brexit.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10633#371239 Now you’re pretending I admitted error to hide the retreat from “materially better trade deal” to “10% tariff.” The only correction I made was on CO2; attribution, which I owned, backed with studies, and which you’re now trying to conflate with Brexit. This isn’t me backtracking, it’s you rewriting history to patch up a point that collapsed days ago. Is it any wonder you can never seem to lay out quotes chronologically? Posted by John Daysh, Sunday, 3 August 2025 2:11:25 PM
| |
No No JD, you definitely implied that what I said was true and that you got it wrong when you said otherwise... you even said it was true.
You've now been back-tracking for days from that momentary lapse of honesty. (That 'implied' wording can carry quite a load, n'est pas?) Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 August 2025 5:33:56 PM
| |
Where exactly did I do this, mhaze?
//…you definitely implied that what I said was true and that you got it wrong when you said otherwise... you even said it was true.// Your claim is suspiciously light on quotes. //That 'implied' wording can carry quite a load, n'est pas?// No, it can’t. You need to be able to show how something is implied if called on to do so - which is what I do when you imply then deny. Notice you’ve not been able to do the same here? Posted by John Daysh, Monday, 4 August 2025 6:35:49 PM
| |
"Your claim is suspiciously light on quotes."
It must be helpful for some to have such a short attention span. ""You didn’t use those exact phrases, true, " says JD. The implication of that phrase, the vibe of it, is that JD admits he's wrong but can't bring himself to admit it." Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 August 2025 8:32:14 PM
|
You’re mixing up two entirely different points:
- I corrected a CO2 citation earlier in the thread. That had nothing to do with Brexit.
- On Brexit, I’ve never “admitted” you were right. In fact, I’ve shown - using your own posts - that you shifted from a materially better Brexit deal to merely lower UK tariffs.
Conflating those two doesn’t magically turn your Brexit retreat into a win. It just shows you’re hoping no one notices you’ve tied unrelated debates together to claim a backtrack that never happened.
Do keep up.