Halifax +2.6 % MoM

StevieJ

pawpurrs wrote: »

Thanks Dopester, so its a bit more accurate than I thought then, if it is based on comparable properties.........interesting.

And not quite as stupid a question as I thought! Around my parts theres a lot of very individual houses, IE no estates all period one offs, so that must be difficult to Judge increases and decreases, all you can go is the last time the property was sold. Its all a bit sketchy isnt it!

That is what the Land Registry does, it is a few months behind though.

StevieJ

I notice the 'US is 12 months in front of us' tripe is still being spouted

mr.broderick

I actually looked into this a few years ago and came to the conclusion that chickens have nothing to do with house prices, i am currently analysing the mating habits of quails and whether this has anything to do with swine flu.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

maybe but obviously my post wasn't that easy to read because you still haven't answered the questions...

Neither have you mine?

Timeline? How?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Neither have you mine?

Timeline? How?

A graph with no measurements on the axis is an illustration (picture) nothing more nothing less.
A graph is a visual representation of figures, no figures no graph sorry.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

A graph with no measurements on the axis is an illustration (picture) nothing more nothing less.
A graph is a visual representation of figures, no figures no graph sorry.

So you have said.

But your not chucky, or at least not in username

Maybe if you keep telling me enough it will distract me from the picture and stop me talking about it though? Can see the truth about how were following it and how far we have to fall is somewhat upsetting you.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So you have said.

But your not chucky, or at least not in username

Maybe if you keep telling me enough it will distract me from the picture and stop me talking about it though? Can see the truth about how were following it and how far we have to fall is somewhat upsetting you.

Can you plot it against the fall in the early 70's 80's 90's just to illustrate how it is proven ?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So you have said.

But your not chucky, or at least not in username

Maybe if you keep telling me enough it will distract me from the picture and stop me talking about it though? Can see the truth about how were following it and how far we have to fall is somewhat upsetting you.

No the graphs (well pictures) are meaningless thats why.

Do they follow the same for everything?

Do you believe in star signs? fate?

Right Graeme over lap the two and if the correlation is the same without altering the graph (eg squashing or extending) I will accepted as spot on.(you say it is the truth afterall;))

Tell you what just get the peaks and the mean to fit and I will believe it.

If you can't you have to make chicken noises all day, OK?

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Can you plot it against the fall in the early 70's 80's 90's just to illustrate how it is proven ?

Beat me to it, he can't even plot it aginst this one.:beer:

But just minor details like the mean not fitting still means it is true.

i pointed out yesterday to him the only way to make it fit and he went all funny:)

Graham_Devon

LOL love it.

So your the ones who don't believe it, tell me it's wrong, but you want ME to prove myself.

Pull the other one. You are the ones saying it's wrong. Feel free to prove it. Until that point, I won't continue this stupid nit picking of whether it's a graph, picture or something I just sneezed out. Neither will I be making chicken, turkey or wallaby noises.

I will simply sit here watching you guys falling over yourself to tell me how wrong the graph is, but without a single reason