Experiment in direct democracy

[slinkydevil]

....from a Minister who has very little credibility left at all after the Douglas Promenade farce?

 

 

That's twice now, you are Murray Lambden and I claim my £5 fare on the horse tram.

[maynragh]

 

Nothing quite so amusing as the impotent machinations emanating from your average pot of manx crabs, that nobody gives a fuck about. You're going to try and discredit the validity of polling data with data you cannot validate. Laughing my tits off.

 

Buckle up bitches, the future is coming!

 

Love,

 

Phil.

Hi scampi

 

 

 

Shh! You'll blow my cover.

[Declan]

It's only a minor experiment, I'd rather we took an objective view. Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

Threats of publishing names and email addresses is pathetic.

[Weevil central]

 

....from a Minister who has very little credibility left at all after the Douglas Promenade farce?

 

That's twice now, you are Murray Lambden and I claim my £5 fare on the horse tram.

Not at all but I would suggest that the people who disagreed with Gawne and the DOI on the horse tram site at least in the majority used their own personal Facebook accounts. Not some farcical unchecked, unvalidated, sock puppet voting website run by people linked to a politician in the run up to an election. That's more representative of democratic process than what has been set up here and the outputs from that were completely and utterly ignored by people now claiming that the people's opinion matters.

[Weevil central]

Threats of publishing names and email addresses is pathetic.

No it isn't. Especially if the accounts are set up by your friends entirely to prove the whole thing is an unaudited, unchecked, farce masquerading as a legitimate source of policy framing.

[maynragh]

 

 

....from a Minister who has very little credibility left at all after the Douglas Promenade farce?

That's twice now, you are Murray Lambden and I claim my £5 fare on the horse tram.

Not at all but I would suggest that the people who disagreed with Gawne and the DOI on the horse tram site at least in the majority used their own personal Facebook accounts. Not some farcical unchecked, unvalidated, sock puppet voting website run by people linked to a politician in the run up to an election. That's more representative of democratic process than what has been set up here and the outputs from that were completely and utterly ignored by people now claiming that the people's opinion matters.

 

 

Because of course it's not possible to have a fake Facebook account is it. Special.

[Weevil central]

 

 

 

....from a Minister who has very little credibility left at all after the Douglas Promenade farce?

 

That's twice now, you are Murray Lambden and I claim my £5 fare on the horse tram.

Not at all but I would suggest that the people who disagreed with Gawne and the DOI on the horse tram site at least in the majority used their own personal Facebook accounts. Not some farcical unchecked, unvalidated, sock puppet voting website run by people linked to a politician in the run up to an election. That's more representative of democratic process than what has been set up here and the outputs from that were completely and utterly ignored by people now claiming that the people's opinion matters.

Because of course it's not possible to have a fake Facebook account is it. Special.

I'm sure you have loads Scampi, but in the majority I'd say most people don't as its too much effort. It's easier to spend 5 seconds setting up a sock puppet on a flawed site like yours instead. Yet somehow some people think that's more credible.

[maynragh]

Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

 

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

[maynragh]

 

 

 

 

....from a Minister who has very little credibility left at all after the Douglas Promenade farce?

That's twice now, you are Murray Lambden and I claim my £5 fare on the horse tram.

Not at all but I would suggest that the people who disagreed with Gawne and the DOI on the horse tram site at least in the majority used their own personal Facebook accounts. Not some farcical unchecked, unvalidated, sock puppet voting website run by people linked to a politician in the run up to an election. That's more representative of democratic process than what has been set up here and the outputs from that were completely and utterly ignored by people now claiming that the people's opinion matters.

Because of course it's not possible to have a fake Facebook account is it. Special.

but in the majority I'd say most people don't as its too much effort.

 

Ah yes, the true voice of authority there. You sure know what you're talking about dontcha.

[Weevil central]

 

Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

 

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

Not at all. Your whole set up is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and you know it which is why you're wasting time angrily defending it on here. If a vote is driven in the house on the back of such a flawed system then it will all be fired out there to show how poor the validation is.

[Declan]

So should MHKs vote in the opposite direction to what the vote shows, just to avoid the consequence of your blackmail.

[maynragh]

 

 

Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

Not at all. Your whole set up is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and you know it which is why you're wasting time angrily defending it on here. If a vote is driven in the house on the back of such a flawed system then it will all be fired out there to show how poor the validation is.

 

 

 

So you're saying it's not possible to validate any information online, but that's exactly what you claim you can do. Loving the logic there.

[Weevil central]

 

 

 

Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

Not at all. Your whole set up is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and you know it which is why you're wasting time angrily defending it on here. If a vote is driven in the house on the back of such a flawed system then it will all be fired out there to show how poor the validation is.

 

So you're saying it's not possible to validate any information online, but that's exactly what you claim you can do. Loving the logic there.

Please grow up. If you have the records from the people who created it and you know it's made up as they have told you it's made up and documented that it's made up then yes it's pretty easy to prove a large number of your members are bullshit socket puppets. You're doing it the other way round though. Taking made up information provided by other people (that you never checked) and pretending it's true as you have no idea whether it's true or not.

[maynragh]

 

 

 

 

Maybe a future version can be effective.

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

Not at all. Your whole set up is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and you know it which is why you're wasting time angrily defending it on here. If a vote is driven in the house on the back of such a flawed system then it will all be fired out there to show how poor the validation is.

 

So you're saying it's not possible to validate any information online, but that's exactly what you claim you can do. Loving the logic there.

If you have the records from the people who created it and you know it's made up as they have told you it's made up and documented that it's made up then yes it's pretty easy to prove a large number of your members are bullshit socket puppets....

 

 

 

If...

[Weevil central]

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a future version can be effective.

 

Of course it can. As Weevil knows full well. Maybe that's the reason for the tanty?

Not at all. Your whole set up is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and you know it which is why you're wasting time angrily defending it on here. If a vote is driven in the house on the back of such a flawed system then it will all be fired out there to show how poor the validation is.

 

So you're saying it's not possible to validate any information online, but that's exactly what you claim you can do. Loving the logic there.

If you have the records from the people who created it and you know it's made up as they have told you it's made up and documented that it's made up then yes it's pretty easy to prove a large number of your members are bullshit socket puppets....

 

If...

As I said. The vote may well be contested if it goes ahead so let's see .... if .... You can't claim to have any authority to represent the views of the people, or vote on the majority view of people, if you can't even prove that some of those votes were made by real people in the first place.