TORYS NOW TO SELL OFF HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOMES !!

[archibald leitch]

In Archie's world having a different opinion to his on this message board constitutes trolling. And he is not alone in displaying such an attitude.

And what are the two conflicting opinions that you are referring to?

[Kiffa]

No I've not. This sudden acceptance that the times and Telegraph print articles worthy of support by those left of centre is akin to suddenly listening to the drunk in the corner of the tap room when you've always dismissed his alcohol fuelled rants.

it comes across as if You're happy to support a newspaper when it writes what you want to read.

let's leave it there as we clearly differ on this point.

A grand total of zero people have said that the Telegraph article is credible.

if the article isn't credible why is it being used as evidence to support an opinion?

it is not, as you well know

Of course its being used by evidence. Several posters, yourself included, have dismissed the policy as bonkers and have suggested that even Tories find it bonkers using this article as justification for that statement.

Fair play, you can be a tedious **** on times.

For regurgitating what you have written? Fine. And with language like that I suggest we agree to disagree and bid you farewell.

The credibility of said papers are not the point here Feedy and you know it. You're really showing yourself up here.

[Feedback]

No I've not. This sudden acceptance that the times and Telegraph print articles worthy of support by those left of centre is akin to suddenly listening to the drunk in the corner of the tap room when you've always dismissed his alcohol fuelled rants.

it comes across as if You're happy to support a newspaper when it writes what you want to read.

let's leave it there as we clearly differ on this point.

A grand total of zero people have said that the Telegraph article is credible.

if the article isn't credible why is it being used as evidence to support an opinion?

it is not, as you well know

Of course its being used by evidence. Several posters, yourself included, have dismissed the policy as bonkers and have suggested that even Tories find it bonkers using this article as justification for that statement.

Fair play, you can be a tedious **** on times.

For regurgitating what you have written? Fine. And with language like that I suggest we agree to disagree and bid you farewell.

No, for making up things that no-one has said and using it as the basis for an argumnet with yourself.

How else am I supposed to interpret your statement that the article shows that even Tories think it's bollockS? for the Tories to think the policy is bollock then the article must be believed and for that go happen the newspaper must have credibility. If the newspaper has no credibility then you can't trust the article. I'm pointing out the error in logic and not commenting on the policy itself Which incidentally is ideologically driven and nothing more than populism. It doesn't address the real housing issue of demand As it doesn't affect housing demand or social housing supply in any way. All this policy does is change legal owner of the property.

[Feedback]

No I've not. This sudden acceptance that the times and Telegraph print articles worthy of support by those left of centre is akin to suddenly listening to the drunk in the corner of the tap room when you've always dismissed his alcohol fuelled rants.

it comes across as if You're happy to support a newspaper when it writes what you want to read.

let's leave it there as we clearly differ on this point.

A grand total of zero people have said that the Telegraph article is credible.

if the article isn't credible why is it being used as evidence to support an opinion?

it is not, as you well know

Of course its being used by evidence. Several posters, yourself included, have dismissed the policy as bonkers and have suggested that even Tories find it bonkers using this article as justification for that statement.

Fair play, you can be a tedious **** on times.

For regurgitating what you have written? Fine. And with language like that I suggest we agree to disagree and bid you farewell.

No, for making up things that no-one has said and using it as the basis for an argumnet with yourself.

I'm trying to see the logic in stating that an article claims the Tories are against this policy. For that statement to be true then the article must be true and for that to be true the newspaper itself must be a credible source. However as it's been claimed previously it's not a credible source then I can't see how the article can be believed by those who claim the Telegraph isn't credible.

[archibald leitch]

[Feedback]

Very good archie but it really doesn't address the logical breakdown.

I never tell the truth

I always tell lies

It's the same paradox

[Kiffa]

No I've not. This sudden acceptance that the times and Telegraph print articles worthy of support by those left of centre is akin to suddenly listening to the drunk in the corner of the tap room when you've always dismissed his alcohol fuelled rants.

it comes across as if You're happy to support a newspaper when it writes what you want to read.

let's leave it there as we clearly differ on this point.

A grand total of zero people have said that the Telegraph article is credible.

if the article isn't credible why is it being used as evidence to support an opinion?

it is not, as you well know

Of course its being used by evidence. Several posters, yourself included, have dismissed the policy as bonkers and have suggested that even Tories find it bonkers using this article as justification for that statement.

Fair play, you can be a tedious **** on times.

For regurgitating what you have written? Fine. And with language like that I suggest we agree to disagree and bid you farewell.

No, for making up things that no-one has said and using it as the basis for an argumnet with yourself.

Yes, you can drive the most civilised of us to swearing with your child like trolling.

No-one is trying to believe what is written in the article, merely the standpoint taken. It is remarkable for a conservative biased paper to be condemning a tory policy, just as it is would be remarkable to see the Mirror condemning labour one (or more recently the Express to condemn a UKIP one!). That is all people are trying to say here.

[Feedback]

Kiffa

I am fully aware of what people are trying to say But as I've said it's illogical to give credibility to a source just because it agrees with your worldview when ordinarily that source is ridiculed.

This policy doesn't increase or decrease housing stock, it doesn't change demand for social housing yet it's such an ideological political hot potato from both sides. I just don't get it.

For the government to make a real difference they should focus housing policy on building g new homes rather than just changing ownership, which is what this policy is all about.

[Kiffa]

Kiffa

Your argumentative tactic seems to be to just repeat the same thing over and over and over.

[Elysium]

Kiffa

I am fully aware of what people are trying to say But as I've said it's illogical to give credibility to a source just because it agrees with your worldview when ordinarily that source is ridiculed.

The usual herd mentality.

[Kiffa]

Kiffa

I am fully aware of what people are trying to say But as I've said it's illogical to give credibility to a source just because it agrees with your worldview when ordinarily that source is ridiculed.

This policy doesn't increase or decrease housing stock, it doesn't change demand for social housing yet it's such an ideological political hot potato from both sides. I just don't get it.

Good for you pal

[Feedback]

Kiffa

I am trying to understand the logic of citing a source that has previously been claimed to be untrustworthy. I am fully appreciate that thsee articles are manna from heaven for those on the left but their use really does defy logic when you consider the left dismisses the Telegraph as being unreliable in what it prints.

If you believe this article then you have to accept the Telegraph is a reliable source of news and comment. If you think the Telegraph is unreliable then what makes this article stand out as being true?

Please understand I'm not dismissing the article, I'm questioning the application of logic (or lack of). I'm asking the question and as such have been labelled a troll and argumentative just because no one is able to explain the logic in using a source that is deemed unreliable.

[Kiffa]

Kiffa

Because, for the hundredth time, you do not need to consider credibility of the papers when analysing their opinions.

[archibald leitch]

Trust me Kiffa, he can keep this up for at least another four pages without breaking sweat. Give up mate.

[Elysium]

Trust me Kiffa, he can keep this up for at least another four pages without breaking sweat. Give up mate.

The pack continues to gather, drawing strength in numbers whilst howling at the moon.

[Kiffa]

Trust me Kiffa, he can keep this up for at least another four pages without breaking sweat. Give up mate.

I am. Its dinner time.

[Feedback]

Kiffa

Ok fair enough. That's where we differ. I'd only ever consider a source if I believed in its credibility and reliability.

[Wolf]

David Orr. Chief Ex of National Housing on this rent to buy scheme bollox

Thanks for that item...............the people who run this country should be hanged from the rafters.My children have to rent private as they cannot get a local authority home.Most private landlords have to get "kicked" to keep their properties in decent livable condition.