[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

I am under no obligation to continue to debate with anyone who I feel is being continually evasive in regard to certain key points, which I have also experienced with you in previous debates, and that is why I ended my discussion with you.
You replied, accusing me of refusing to continue to debate because I didn't want to answer something you asked me or something I couldn't argue against or whatever. That's not true, but it seems you can't accept that. I know its 100% the truth, so that's okay with me.

I think we just don't gel at all as debating partners. I like to enjoy a debate to some extent, but I find you too frustrating, and perhaps you feel the same about me.
Lets leave it at that, eh?

You can't keep playing the 'evasive' card pretty much a day after I gave you an answer. You're the one being evasive now because you declared my opinion invalid and now you won't explain why. All you've done is snipe at me and insult me while offering nothing of value in terms of the topic.

I'm going to keep pressing the issue because you are being so evasive about it. Explain why the answer I gave you is apparently invalid, this is a debate so defend yourself.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You can't keep playing the 'evasive' card pretty much a day after I gave you an answer. You're the one being evasive now because you declared my opinion invalid and now you won't explain why. All you've done is snipe at me and insult me while offering nothing of value in terms of the topic.

I'm going to keep pressing the issue because you are being so evasive about it. Explain why the answer I gave you is apparently invalid, this is a debate so defend yourself.

Oh for goodness sake! Is it really that important to you?
Does this help:

You continuously referred to low sales of the DM as being the reason they stopped making them available on their trains and made no reference at all to the statement about withdrawing them because they didn't agree with the papers views.
I wrote several times in response to this:

Once again you have ignored the fact that Virgin clearly stated their reasons for withdrawing the DM was because they didn't agree with their views.
I believe this is the second time you have ignored this, which I bolded as an important point in my previous posts to you.
I find you smoke screen a lot and therefore are too frustrating to converse with.

Finally, you referred to this lack of response to Virgin withdrawing the papers because it was stated they didn't agree with their views by saying:

Figures speak louder than words or reasoning to me especially if the reasoning seems like spin to me that contradicts the figures.

That is the very epitome of faff to me and at that point I lost the will to carry on talking to you.

Now are you going to come back with more stuff or will you have mercy on me.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Oh for goodness sake! Is it really that important to you?
Does this help:

You continuously referred to low sales of the DM as being the reason they stopped making them available on their trains and made no reference at all to the statement about withdrawing them because they didn't agree with the papers views.
I wrote several times in response to this:



Finally, you referred to this lack of response to Virgin withdrawing the papers because it was stated they didn't agree with their views by saying:



That is the very epitome of faff to me and at that point I lost the will to carry on talking to you.

Now are you going to come back with more stuff or will you have mercy on me.

I'm allowed to respond Jet, I know the whole idea of freedom of speech being a two way street is such a bother to you but you're gonna have to deal with it.

What I said was true, figures almost always tell the truth, it's the reasoning that provides the spin and in this case I found the reasoning to be at odds with the figures they presented. If sales were that low then why would they need to defend their decision to axe it by saying that it didn't mesh well with their company's views? When they could have just said 'We're getting rid because it doesn't sell on our trains.' and left it at that.

When inconsistencies appear between reasoning and the figures and you have to choose one of them to believe then it's almost always wise to trust the figures themselves because companies can **** themselves over or open themselves up to legal action if they declare that they've sold a false number of a product. To me, the discrepancy is most likely down to poor PR strategy.