Incapacity failed medical

Garry_Anderson

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Damn thanked you for that comment by accident.

I do not have a problem with English neither! What sources did you use for your statistics, or are they made up ones from your paranoid world! If you are a true academic shouldn't you be backing up your post with a reference list?

I cc'd Healy and yourself because you both have trouble comprehending English when the post you were thanking was clearly not understanding what I had wrote.

The post was not an academic excercise - but those stats can be got at Hansard 12 November 98, Col: 295.

nogginthenog

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And that's why your arguments will carry little weight, without proof behind them.

I probably agree with you more than you think but I don't belief in arguing these issues on emotions and ignorance.

So why are you waisting time and space, arguing with someone with 25 years union experience..how can people take you at face value...this is meant to be a help forum

alwaysonthego_2

nogginthenog wrote: »

So why are you waisting time and space, arguing with someone with 25 years union experience..how can people take you at face value...this is meant to be a help forum

ONW has got a valid point, if you want to put across your point then you need reliable stats to back up your argument. People should not take comments on this forum as face value otherwise they could be following well intentional, but wrong advice.

alwaysonthego_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

I cc'd Healy and yourself because you both have trouble comprehending English when the post you were thanking was clearly not understanding what I had wrote.

The post was not an academic excercise - but those stats can be got at Hansard 12 November 98, Col: 295.

I perfectly understood your post and dmg's! I thanked dmg because I agreed with her comment.

Garry_Anderson

alwaysonthego wrote: »

I perfectly understood your post and dmg's! I thanked dmg because I agreed with her comment.

That is somewhat asinine - because DMG comment was not addressing the point I made.

You presumably would thank somebody who responded "If that were true, why are New Labour in power?" to the same point because you agreed with it - even though the "If that were true" part had nothing to do with it.

alwaysonthego_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

That is somewhat asinine - because DMG comment was not addressing the point I made.

You presumably would thank somebody who responded "If that were true, why are New Labour in power?" to the same point because you agreed with it - even though the "If that were true" part had nothing to do with it.

Why asinine, am I not entitled to disagree with you?

If we are throwing around 'big words' I will define your posts has being cantankerous.

Garry_Anderson

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Why asinine, am I not entitled to disagree with you?

Certainly - but the logic of comment (and thanking somebody for it) is devoid of inteligence - for the reasons given.

"If that were true, why do oranges taste nice?"

Why can you not see that?

Garry_Anderson

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If that were true, why are there so many more people on sickness related benefits than ever before?

Though this does not relate to my point - "if that were true" indeed - latest from DWP:

Key Findings
• The number of people claiming incapacity benefits of working age has fallen by 51 thousand to 2.6 million in the year to August 2008.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/Stats_Summary_Feb2009.pdf?x=1

sunnyone

Much of the falling number of people claiming incapacity benefit is due to people who worked in heavy industry reaching retirement age and not "rationing" of incapacity benefits.

sunnyone

alwaysonthego_2

Was I asinine for thanking Sunnyone?