Have we done...

[Old Greg]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, ONS actually looked at all that, in support of my belief that religion affects the number of children you will have (the only thing I actually said which was neither negative or positive, just a fact).



So as I suggested SAS's suggestion that predominately Christian MEDC's are a good model for the future behaviour of predominately non Christian LEDC's is cobblers, because religion affects offspring numbers .

Now to Sue Ellen - If I mention religion and cultural Origin it doesn't mean I am prejudiced, far from it I believe it is indicative of people's likely actions . I personally believe Islam, hinduism & sikhism typically encourage a more together family unit than Atheism does that mean I inherently hate Atheists?

The figures as you quoted them did not support your conclusion.

You were simply displaying a logical error typical of a stupid, stupid man.

[vetran]

The figures as you quoted them did not support your conclusion.

You were simply displaying a logical error typical of a stupid, stupid man.

No they didn't, but of course you failed to read the data I gave you. Maybe I did it on purpose to show what a bunch of Knee-jerkers you are? Didn't think of that did you?

Bazinga!

Still waiting for some facts that support the low end estimate as likely.

[Old Greg]

No they didn't, but of course you failed to read the data I gave you. Maybe I did it on purpose to show what a bunch of Knee-jerkers you are? Didn't think of that did you?

Bazinga!

Still waiting for some facts that support the low end estimate as likely.

I'm mocking you, not debating with you.

[vetran]

I'm mocking you, not debating with you.

Mocking would suggest you were in some way superior. I would suggest you are calling me names in desperation as you have no coherent argument.

so as usual to you my reply is:

"Have you got something useful to add? - Thought Not!"

[Old Greg]

Mocking would suggest you were in some way superior. I would suggest you are calling me names in desperation as you have no coherent argument.

so as usual to you my reply is:

"Have you got something useful to add? - Thought Not!"

It's far too late for this, cretin.

[doodab]

Still waiting for some facts that support the low end estimate as likely.

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.

[Old Greg]

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.

It's a bit unfair to suggest he may be lazy.

[vetran]

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.

Actually Red Sauce quoted 1.3B, I questioned it as low even to what SAS was initially suggesting. SAS then called me a moron and a lowly paid BA who couldn't understand the facts and supported Red Sauces figures.

I think 10Bn is optimistic because its based on experience of a completely different type of country something mentioned in the research, 1.3B growth is laughable but that is what started SAS's attacks so I'm taking that as his base line.


They aren't facts they are projections, based on 60 years of rapid change after centuries of steadily growing population. All it takes is for China to change the 1 child policy or a large LEDC decide they want more children and the projections are blown out of the water.

That was my entire point, 'IT DEPENDS, but my money is on more rather than less'.

[sasguru]

Actually Red Sauce quoted 1.3B, I questioned it as low even to what SAS was initially suggesting. SAS then called me a moron and a lowly paid BA who couldn't understand the facts and supported Red Sauces figures.

I think 10Bn is optimistic because its based on experience of a completely different type of country something mentioned in the research, 1.3B growth is laughable but that is what started SAS's attacks so I'm taking that as his base line.


They aren't facts they are projections, based on 60 years of rapid change after centuries of steadily growing population. All it takes is for China to change the 1 child policy or a large LEDC decide they want more children and the projections are blown out of the water.

That was my entire point, 'IT DEPENDS, but my money is on more rather than less'.

You probably don't realise this at all but you're only confirming with each post how cretinous you are, even by CUK standards.
If there was any doubt, your posts remove it.
So do keep posting

But the others are right, you're too stupid to debate with. So have a nice life.

[eek]

You probably don't realise this at all but you're only confirming with each post how cretinous you are, even by CUK standards.
If there was any doubt, your posts remove it.
So do keep posting

King Cretin speaks again.