Labour now

The problem seems to be some think they are chatting to a friend in an otherwise empty room but there are no empty rooms in forums, isn't this why there are PM's

And then there are some who could have an argument in an empty too. ,

Have been known to Anniebach Shakespeare generally has a quotation for most situations.
But if on the other hand you are doubting my word that I had not seen the post you refer to, then you may have to wash your mouth out with soap and water!

The problem seems to be some think they are chatting to a friend in an otherwise empty room but there are no empty rooms in forums, isn't this why there are PM's

Doubt it MawBroon unless you often pop in a reference to Hamlet in threads

You are also assuming that I check every post assiduously, Anniebach but mea culpa I must have missed that appalling omission

Anniebach I was brought up to believe that you use a name the first time you mention a person and thereafter it is acceptable to refer to him or her by the pronoun "he" or "she".
It was always regarded as extremely bad manners to start with either he/she/they , without making it clear to whom you were referring.
As in " Mu-um, she hit me!"

(As it was actually GracesgranMk2 who made the original comment, I also fail to see why DJ is being "got at" )

Anker's all it means is that if you are going to quote someone then quote them. The language I used is precise - I am not a Labour supporter - a non Labour supporter means something different and I cannot know what it is because it is POGS description not mine but had I felt it applied to me I would have used it - I didn't.

I cannot answer the question. Would a "non Labour supporter" not think the political party they would vote for would change anything? I don't know. I told you what I think but this other "non Labour supporter" person has been conjured up.

As for "blind faith in the party" I just don't know how the conjured person POGS referred to feels. It isn't me.

The extra salary Corbyn receives as leader is not salary it's a benefit !

Really MawBroon, a poster was referred to as she and her yesterday , you didn't see this as a lack of courtesy ,

Does a non Labour supporter mean she is a member of another party but supports Labour? As in a [non Labour] supporter?

Is she a member of the liberal Party?

Who is she? Ankers? "The cat's mother? " as my mum might have said.
Courtesy costs nothing

Another Trump dead cat then.

A ploy to avoid the question?
Are you GN police?
"You will answer the question....."

Does a non Labour supporter mean she is a member of another party but supports Labour? As in a [non Labour] supporter?

Or it could be what dj says?

Is she a member of the liberal Party?

So what the heck is the problem in my saying in my post of 10.28 am that has knickers twisted :-

" You say you are a non Labour Supporter you obviously do not think the political party you would vote for will 'change anything looking toward the future' . Fair enough a blind faith in the party we vote for is a folly none of them are perfect."

The debacle over 'terminology' looks like it has been nothing more than just a ploy to avoid the question re the statement by GGMK2:-

" As far as I can see, and I am not a Labour supporter, the only party who are looking to the changes the future will bring is the Labour Party "

I reiterate, a statement that has never been given a whiff of a response or reason as to the thought behind the statement.

Ye Gods.

I am not a Labour supporter means I am not a Labour supporter.
I am a non Labour supporter means I support another party.

That's what I see as the difference anyway.

Not a lot I can do about that POGS I'm afraid. If you turn things round they tend not to mean the same thing but it's probably only me who minds you doing that so I shouldn't worry although it might, in the future, be worth actually quoting not re-wording and then nobody will be baffled.

GG MK 2

Well there you go. I was trying to establish what you had perhaps noticed , read about, listened to in Labours policies with regard to a statement in your post that said :-

" As far as I can see, and I am not a Labour supporter, the only party who are looking to the changes the future will bring is the Labour Party. Weakened by attacks from within they are still addressing, quietly at the moment, the prospects for the future the above quote describes while the Tories continue to blame one group or another rather than find solutions. The future could be good for all but you have to see the truth to make it so. "

I thought I had made a reasoned point by raising the similarity in your post and The 4th Industrial Revolution subject but I have to conclude only durhamjen could give any response to my question.

The point you are raising re your comment concerning Labour Membership and yourself is totally baffling me.

I can see that you do not understand why I do not perceive any logic in your sentence POGS. I am sorry you don't but saying "why don't you see any logic in my post" doesn't get us any further forward. I didn't and I don't.

Are a "non Labour supporter" and "not a Labour supporter" really the same to you? As I am identifying my position I really don't think you can apply your different definition and assume you have it right. Identify your position by all means but please don't ascribe a new one to me.

This could apply to other parties as well.

think-left.org/2017/03/05/how-to-get-rid-of-a-democratically-elected-leader/

Is there an exam for both of those, daphne?

GG MK2 16.50

" Did I really say I was a "non Labour Supporter"? I thought I said I was not a Labour supporter and I am reasonably sure they really don't mean anything like the same thing. I can't see any logic in what you say and your twist on what I said about myself seems to be at the root of it. "

Explain to me the difference between a 'non Labour Supporter' and 'not a Labour Supporter'. How is that twisting what you said about yourself?

What can't you see any logic to? My post of 10.28am?

I actually raised the subject of the 41R , The 4th Industrial Revolution in response to your post which touched on issues that relate to 41R and asked how you believe only Labour were 'looking to the future' which was the premise of your post, or so I thought.

I do not understand what you do not see any logic to , is that the reason why gave no meaningful response to my question to you.

Durhamjen understood my post ,I thought you had also given your words to Ankers at 17.10.

" Really? We already happily discuss the Gig economy and the Platform economy because they are here and both robotisation and AI are displacing jobs in both the unskilled and skilled areas. I would say it is happening already Ankers but do keep your eyes closed if you don't want to believe it. "

I guess we are both confused about each others logic!

attractions with a 't'

I recently discovered that the opposite of kakistocracy is epistocracy. It has its attracions.

Though isnt a basic income idea, the opposite of what she is advocating?

I was appalled too dj. And hoped Lady Di's friend's idea takes off.
Somehow, I dont think it will though.