House prices: Rises may start to slow, surveyors say

Nutrisse

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In my opinion they are very much the same, however I seem to recall more "bearish" posters being PPR'd

I don't think many people would disagree with you on that point.

Perhaps that's why 'bullish' posters get so abusive, they think they will get away with it?

Please be nice to moneysavers.

IveSeenTheLight

Nutrisse wrote: »

I don't think many people would disagree with you on that point.

Perhaps that's why 'bullish' posters get so abusive, they think they will get away with it?

Please be nice to moneysavers.

Or possibly that the "bullish" posters are not as abusive as the "bearish" posters

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No you can't, you don't get it

blinkered view is if you only take one side of the argument and are not open to others.

Like this thread where the report said that both supply and demand were up yet you only accepted the supply part

Could a blinkered view not be classified as taking something that was said, for instance "IMO, demand is pretty static" and then changing that to "you only accept the supply part"?

I.e. you are not allowing yourself to realise and seperate, that my opinion was merely my opinion, and you have made a huge issue out of it, although I stated categorically it was only my opinion.

You have then told me I am only accepting certain parts of the story.

That's blinkered my friend. Not being able to accept that someone has their own opinion outside of ONE media story, and has stated that it's just their own opinion.

Or are you so blinkered that only your thoughts are correct?

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Interesting take as you never pull up "bearish" poster who do the same or far worse.

So you have a clan mindset and it is not the abuse that is the problem just the other "clan"

the good thing is that we know that Nurishment has a rather big chip on his shoulder and feels very inadequate.

life is just not fair - now get back and do your homework Nurishment

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No you can't, you don't get it

blinkered view is if you only take one side of the argument and are not open to others.

Like this thread where the report said that both supply and demand were up yet you only accepted the supply part

you probably need to explain demand to the Devon chap

nembot

Really2 wrote: »

I agree off this thread.



:T

To be fair Really "muppets" is nowhere near [EMAIL="tw@t"]!!!!!![/EMAIL], moron, fkin'idiot and all the other insults I've had directed at me.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Could a blinkered view not be classified as taking something that was said, for instance "IMO, demand is pretty static" and then changing that to "you only accept the supply part"?

I.e. you are not allowing yourself to realise and seperate, that my opinion was merely my opinion, and you have made a huge issue out of it, although I stated categorically it was only my opinion.

You have then told me I am only accepting certain parts of the story.

That's blinkered my friend. Not being able to accept that someone has their own opinion outside of ONE media story, and has stated that it's just their own opinion.

Or are you so blinkered that only your thoughts are correct?

To clarify, I did ask you how you could think demand was static when the report clarified that both were increased.

Still if you wish to dismiss facts then that is your perogative for sure.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How can you think demand is static and supply is up when the report clarifies both are up.
You can't just take one part of the report only because it suits.

The silver lining for you is that supply is up more than demand.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

To clarify, I did ask you how you could think demand was static when the report clarified that both were increased.

Still if you wish to dismiss facts then that is your perogative for sure.

To clarify, I don't know how many more times I can say, IMO I think demand is static. Espeically over a period longer than month.

Lets get real ISTL, and stop this sillyness.

If I post up a thread today which states that BTL's on the whole are in massive trouble (and I could post something like this no doubt, with a link to an article), would you not, as you have done in the past, very recent past (rents dropping thread, where you said they were not in your opinion), state that in your opinion, or experience, this is not true?

That's all I have done. I have said "I think demand is pretty much static IMO".

WHAT is the huge great issue? I realise it's good for a few pages worth of argument, but seriously, I don't see the issue here. So you are right in saying I don't get it.

Next time you do the same, as disagree with an article, remember, I will make a huge great issue of your own thoughts because they do not tally with the article I posted.

What are you actually going on at me for?

Really2

nembot wrote: »

To be fair Really "muppets" is nowhere near [EMAIL="tw@t"]!!!!!![/EMAIL], moron, fkin'idiot and all the other insults I've had directed at me.

I agree, but also it is fair to say that does not just come from one side does it. (I have been called similar by "bears" so fail to see what the "abuse" is about on this thread TBH as there as been no "real" abuse)

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To clarify, I don't know how many more times I can say, IMO I think demand is static. Espeically over a period longer than month.

Lets get real ISTL, and stop this sillyness.

If I post up a thread today which states that BTL's on the whole are in massive trouble (and I could post something like this no doubt, with a link to an article), would you not, as you have done in the past, very recent past (rents dropping thread, where you said they were not in your opinion), state that in your opinion, or experience, this is not true?

That's all I have done. I have said "I think demand is pretty much static IMO".

WHAT is the huge great issue? I realise it's good for a few pages worth of argument, but seriously, I don't see the issue here. So you are right in saying I don't get it.

Next time you do the same, as disagree with an article, remember, I will make a huge great issue of your own thoughts because they do not tally with the article I posted.

What are you actually going on at me for?

Graham,

Debate is all about making your opinions heard and backing them up with facts.
In this thread you have simply taken facts and agreed to some parts of it but not others without justifying why you think differently to the facts presented.

Similar to the rents thread you refer to.
the report said that rents were falling and I stated that they were not in my VI area and that I was considering increasing them.
That is justifying my opinion and neither did I state that I thought that my experience was being seen throughout the country.

It's dawned on me that in order to have a meaningful debate, you have to have this on an equal intelligence level.

Unfortunately I doubt (as I have found on numerous occasions), that it is possible to have a meaningful debate between ourselves.