UKIP - We will not aspire to restrict the rate at which house prices and rents rise

Graham_Devon

Aye, and theres another post somewhere.

Notice you took the link out of the quote though.

Presumably because the context in which I wrote that would be shown? I.e. you were suggesting if people wanted a referendum they would have voted in the local elections, and they didn't.

In that post I was explaining I wanted a referendum and if offered the chance would have voted for it.

Heres the link for the full context and not the plucked singular sentence
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4586809

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aye, and theres another post somewhere.

You are hard work. I said you would've voted UKIP if a candidate had been put up in your area. The context of the quote is clear - you didn't vote because there wasn't a UKIP candidate.

You called me a liar and said I couldn't read. I'm very hurt.

To be fair I did find another quote saying you didn't intend to vote for UKIP in the future but you don't get called Mr. Muddle for no reason.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aye, and theres another post somewhere.

Notice you took the link out of the quote though.

Presumably because the context in which I wrote that would be shown? I.e. you were suggesting if people wanted a referendum they would have voted in the local elections, and they didn't.

In that post I was explaining I wanted a referendum and if offered the chance would have voted for it.

Heres the link for the full context and not the plucked singular sentence
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4586809

Not taken out of context at all - you all but said you didn't vote because there was no UKIP candidate, and then in this thread have said that isn't what you said. Why would I quote a whole thread when the salient quote is in one post? The "plucked singular sentence" is the the very thing you said you never said.

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

Not taken out of context at all - you all but said you didn't vote because there was no UKIP candidate, and then in this thread have said that isn't what you said. Why would I quote a whole thread when the salient quote is in one post? The "plucked singular sentence" is the the very thing you said you never said.

No, you were stating that people would vote if they wanted a refendum and clearly as they hadn't voted, the majority didn't want a referendum. I told you I didn't vote as I didn't have a UKIP councellor (you know I want a referendum) but would vote in a referendum.



I was pointing out to you that not everyone who would vote in a referendum votes in local elections.

Something it appears you are completely unable to grasp (then and now).

And wotsthat, I'm not hard work, I'm just responding to your lies and you are finding ti awkward.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And wotsthat, I'm not hard work, I'm just responding to your lies and you are finding ti awkward.

I said you would've voted UKIP if a candidate was available. A quote attributed to you confirms this. I've very clearly not lied.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you were stating that people would vote if they wanted a refendum and clearly as they hadn't voted, the majority didn't want a referendum. I told you I didn't vote as I didn't have a UKIP councellor (you know I want a referendum) but would vote in a referendum.



I was pointing out to you that not everyone who would vote in a referendum votes in local elections.

Something it appears you are completely unable to grasp (then and now).

And wotsthat, I'm not hard work, I'm just responding to your lies and you are finding ti awkward.

I'm not the one having difficulty grasping anything. You're using the issue of "context" to try and muddle the fact that you've denied saying something you very clearly said. The "context" of that previous thread is irrelevant (although you were just as confused on the issue there).

You stated in that thread that you didn't vote because there was no UKIP candidate to vote for - the reasons you made that statement are irrelevant for the purpose of this thread where you have stated that you never said anything to that effect.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer for you to grasp.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you were stating that people would vote if they wanted a refendum and clearly as they hadn't voted, the majority didn't want a referendum. I told you I didn't vote as I didn't have a UKIP councellor (you know I want a referendum) but would vote in a referendum.



I was pointing out to you that not everyone who would vote in a referendum votes in local elections.

Something it appears you are completely unable to grasp (then and now).

And wotsthat, I'm not hard work, I'm just responding to your lies and you are finding ti awkward.

wotsthat wrote: »

I said you would've voted UKIP if a candidate was available. A quote attributed to you confirms this. I've very clearly not lied.

GhIFA wrote: »

I'm not the one having difficulty grasping anything. You're using the issue of "context" to try and muddle the fact that you've denied saying something you very clearly said. The "context" of that previous thread is irrelevant (although you were just as confused on the issue there).

You stated in that thread that you didn't vote because there was no UKIP candidate to vote for - the reasons you made that statement are irrelevant for the purpose of this thread where you have stated that you never said anything to that effect.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer for you to grasp.

Handbags at dawn guys.

WGAT.