No deal better than a bad deal

[meridian]

You're right, I missed those 2 years, so below is the complete list of ALL dates, so far...

21-07-1999 / 14-01-2002 : Committee on Fisheries
17-01-2002 / 19-07-2004 : Committee on Fisheries
21-07-2004 / 14-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
15-01-2007 / 30-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
07-01-2009 / 13-07-2009 : Committee on Fisheries
16-07-2009 / 18-01-2012 : Committee on Fisheries <- Here is the extremely selective dates used by Greenpeace
19-01-2012 / 13-01-2013 : Committee on Fisheries

Source: Home | Nigel FARAGE | MEPs | European Parliament

Of course, Europa.eu could be lying
Pop goes your bubble, just like meridian.

So let's ask you again - do you feel Greenpeace are being dishonest (in their very selective use of dates) ?

You say a lot, yet don’t actually provide any information on how many meetings there were, or how many he attended.

Presumably, because that information is too hard for you to find.

As I wrote above, unless you’ve got any hard data that contradicts, 1/42 stands as the representative number.

If you dispute that, then present your numbers, otherwise jog on....

[Bean]

You say a lot, yet don’t actually provide any information on how many meetings there were, or how many he attended.

Presumably, because that information is too hard for you to find.

As I wrote above, unless you’ve got any hard data that contradicts, 1/42 stands as the representative number.

If you dispute that, then present your numbers, otherwise jog on....

You do realise what you're implying by that post right?

I dispute your implication, that no meetings were held by the Fisheries Committee during the following dates;
21-07-1999 / 14-01-2002 : Committee on Fisheries
17-01-2002 / 19-07-2004 : Committee on Fisheries
21-07-2004 / 14-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
15-01-2007 / 30-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
07-01-2009 / 13-07-2009 : Committee on Fisheries <- Meeting linked below was held within these dates
16-07-2009 / 18-01-2012 : Committee on Fisheries <- 'Greenpeace' statistic dates
19-01-2012 / 13-01-2013 : Committee on Fisheries

In fact, I refute it:
Committee on Fisheries | Multimedia centre | European Parliament

10th Feb 2009

No more sea-lioning from you.

pop goes your bubble.

[meridian]

You do realise what you're implying by that post right?

I dispute your implication, that no meetings were held by the Fisheries Committee during the following dates;
21-07-1999 / 14-01-2002 : Committee on Fisheries
17-01-2002 / 19-07-2004 : Committee on Fisheries
21-07-2004 / 14-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
15-01-2007 / 30-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
07-01-2009 / 13-07-2009 : Committee on Fisheries <- Meeting linked below was held within these dates
16-07-2009 / 18-01-2012 : Committee on Fisheries <- 'Greenpeace' statistic dates
19-01-2012 / 13-01-2013 : Committee on Fisheries

In fact, I refute it:
Committee on Fisheries | Multimedia centre | European Parliament

10th Feb 2009

No more sea-lioning from you.

pop goes your bubble.

At no point have I said that there were no other meetings. Clearly there were, and nobody is disputing that.

The thing is, though, that you simply can’t verify one way or the other how many of those Farage attended. The commonly-stated position of 1/42 for the specified period isn’t in dispute, and as a representative sample of the rest of his career I’m happy to extrapolate from that.

The sad fact is that you have no evidence otherwise, that he attended proportionally any more meetings in the previous years.

And it’s telling that Farage himself hasn’t attempted to refute the 1/42 by detailing his attendance over the previous years either.

At the end of the day, you’ve got nothing.

[WTFH]

Not quite what a quick google search of the word 'constructive' returns but hey ho.

You didn't ask me for a google definition of Constructive. You asked me what I meant when I used the word constructive, which I used in a phrase about debate and discussion

Addressing Q1, Q2, Q4 & Q5 (Not committee, EP) but still...

But still? But still, it's not addressing the committee of about 50 people, it's addressing a group of >600. In other words, it's not the committee.

PS. The right to have a different opinion is not the same as a right to force people to listen to your opinion, besides their opinions are recorded in the EU equivalent of Hansard aren't they?

So if NF's opinion in the fisheries committee is recorded somewhere, perhaps you'd care to share them all so that we can see how constructive his opinions were.

[Bean]

At no point have I said that there were no other meetings. Clearly there were, and nobody is disputing that.

The thing is, though, that you simply can’t verify one way or the other how many of those Farage attended. The commonly-stated position of 1/42 for the specified period isn’t in dispute, and as a representative sample of the rest of his career I’m happy to extrapolate from that.

The sad fact is that you have no evidence otherwise, that he attended proportionally any more meetings in the previous years.

And it’s telling that Farage himself hasn’t attempted to refute the 1/42 by detailing his attendance over the previous years either.

At the end of the day, you’ve got nothing.

At no point did I say you had, I said you implied it and you did

Even without knowing if he attended, the '/42' is the bit that would change though, depending on how many meetings there were outside those selective dates.

You are correct though, the EU doesn't make attendance figures easily accessible to the public, which is unusual for a supra-national organisation that publicly, lauds more transparency.
(I suppose we can file this under; reformation ideas to be suggested and ignored at the next plenary session)

To use beermat maths, Greenpeace used meetings held over 3 years, out of 13 years that they could have used..........hmmmm if it looks like a small sample size, smells like a small sample size, what is it?
(Further question, what do statisticians/scientists etc. usually say to people who try to extrapolate from a study/poll with small sample sizes and apply it to the whole?)

At the end of the day, you're just parroting something you've heard.

[Whorty]

You're right, I missed those 2 years, so below is the complete list of ALL dates, so far...

21-07-1999 / 14-01-2002 : Committee on Fisheries
17-01-2002 / 19-07-2004 : Committee on Fisheries
21-07-2004 / 14-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
15-01-2007 / 30-01-2007 : Committee on Fisheries
07-01-2009 / 13-07-2009 : Committee on Fisheries
16-07-2009 / 18-01-2012 : Committee on Fisheries <- Here is the extremely selective dates used by Greenpeace
19-01-2012 / 13-01-2013 : Committee on Fisheries

Source: Home | Nigel FARAGE | MEPs | European Parliament

Of course, Europa.eu could be lying
Pop goes your bubble, just like meridian.

So let's ask you again - do you feel Greenpeace are being dishonest (in their very selective use of dates) ?

Your sole argument then, is not to defend the FACT that he only attended 1 out of 42 meetings in the three years referenced, but to say that he MAY have attended a higher proportion of meetings in other years.

ok, let's assume he attended 100% of meetings in the years prior to 2010 ..... are you still happy that for the years 2010 - 2012 he only attended 1 out of 42? Do you think that, for someone who is supposed to be on that committee defending the rights of the British fisherman and is paid to do so, that this is acceptable?

[Bean]

You didn't ask me for a google definition of Constructive. You asked me what I meant when I used the word constructive, which I used in a phrase about debate and discussion

Indeed, I am merely commenting with my observation, as an aside (hence the 'anyway'), that your definition is quite different from 'google' or a dictionary definition of that word.

But still? But still, it's not addressing the committee of about 50 people, it's addressing a group of >600. In other words, it's not the committee.

It goes someway to prove, that he can and does contribute using those qualities you listed as 'constructive', so it's not a major leap to suggest he could and does do the same in committees.

So if NF's opinion in the fisheries committee is recorded somewhere, perhaps you'd care to share them all so that we can see how constructive his opinions were.

You're the EU-loving Europhile, you point me to the Europa.eu (or suitable alternative) resource and I can give it a look.

I've given it a good go today, providing links, quotes and numbers.....all you did was ask a few questions and skip answering a few of them, as the answers would probably show either; ignorance and/or bias.
(If anything, you're close to sea-lioning to waste my time....couldn't answer a simple question with 'I don't know', instead choosing to deflect with new questions.....)

[meridian]

At no point did I say you had, I said you implied it and you did

Even without knowing if he attended, the '/42' is the bit that would change though, depending on how many meetings there were outside those selective dates.

You are correct though, the EU doesn't make attendance figures easily accessible to the public, which is unusual for a supra-national organisation that publicly, lauds more transparency.
(I suppose we can file this under; reformation ideas to be suggested and ignored at the next plenary session)

To use beermat maths, Greenpeace used meetings held over 3 years, out of 13 years that they could have used..........hmmmm if it looks like a small sample size, smells like a small sample size, what is it?
(Further question, what do statisticians/scientists etc. usually say to people who try to extrapolate from a study/poll with small sample sizes and apply it to the whole?)

At the end of the day, you're just parroting something you've heard.

Cool, we’re agreed then. Extrapolating and estimating, we can estimate that he attended 4/160.

All of which is the long way around to somewhat answering the question, does he care about fishing.

[Bean]

Your sole argument then, is not to defend the FACT that he only attended 1 out of 42 meetings in the three years referenced, but to say that he MAY have attended a higher proportion of meetings in other years.

ok, let's assume he attended 100% of meetings in the years prior to 2010 ..... are you still happy that for the years 2010 - 2012 he only attended 1 out of 42?

Potentially, yes - have you read the earlier parts of the thread?

Do you think that, for someone who is supposed to be on that committee defending the rights of the British fisherman and is paid to do so, that this is acceptable?

Again, potentially, there are many times when scheduling conflicts occur in parliaments and one must choose.

anyway meridian introduced that 'statistic' in post #13

His whining about not getting his way would be more believable if he turned up more than one in 42 meetings, and if he bothered to vote in any of the CFP legislation.

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2628845

My immediate response was to ask

Is 42, the total number of meetings the committee ever had? (specifically, whilst he was a member of the committee)

Could you qualify if he ever turned up to more than 1 committee meeting?

but no answers were forthcoming, despite meridian posting the disingenuous statistic...



Anyway, let's go back to the start;

We could have been negotiating fishing rights around the EU, except the British MEP who was given the job didn't care about the UK fishing industry.

Is there a direct quote from the MEP in question?

Or are you asserting that due to his relatively low participation during votes?
(Something he asserts as being a result of always being outvoted by other members, so there being no point in his 'protest vote')

What was the committee voting weighting btw?
Did/does he have a point?
(I ask you personally, as you always bring this up but never address his own reasoning behind it...)

He can claim to be outvoted all he wants - if he doesn't vote, he's always outvoted. Running away and taking his vote with him means he FAILED to carry out his job. He FAILED to represent the region that he was elected to represent.

He did vote though, in multiple votes on the fisheries committee, or do you believe otherwise? How many meetings HAS he attended, according to you?
(Or are you being very selective in what dates you are using to make your 'fact' true?)

So I asked some questions and these are still outstanding...

1. Is 42, the total number of meetings the committee ever had? - addressed to meridian
2. Could you qualify if he ever turned up to more than 1 committee meeting? - addressed to meridian
3. Is there a direct quote from the MEP in question? - addressed to WTFH
4. are you asserting that due to his relatively low participation during votes - addressed to WTFH
5. How many meetings HAS he attended, according to you - addressed to WTFH
6. are you being very selective in what dates you are using to make your 'fact' true? - addressed to WTFH


Questions 1&2 are to find out whether meridian would truly 'believe' him, given his "whining about not getting his way would be more believable" comment
Questions 3&4 are to find out why and how WTFH characterises him as 'not caring', or whether it's just solely bias
Questions 5&6 are to find out why & how WTFH characterises him as 'failing', given he's only using selective dates

[Bean]

Cool, we’re agreed then. Extrapolating and estimating, we can estimate that he attended 4/160.

All of which is the long way around to somewhat answering the question, does he care about fishing.

from my previous post:
(Further question, what do statisticians/scientists etc. usually say to people who try to extrapolate from a study/poll with small sample sizes and apply it to the whole?)