No matter what I say, you won't accept it.... and if I can't commission a University survey, then I must be wrong.
I not sure where you’re getting that from. I’ve said many times that I don’t dispute your opinions regarding the Pier. How can I? You’re there and I’m not. But if subjective opinions, based on single-viewpoint observations, were always valid, then we’d still assume the Sun goes round the Earth.
The reason University-led research is usually better than subjective opinion is the Academic verification structure, but more on that later.
Where I take issue is when you present opinions as facts viz:
“Llandudno is pretty much like a ghost town this year”
“those who are coming are spending very little indeed”
“…many other shops (of all kinds) are closing so early in the day, and many closing down for good”
“no one is wanting to buy anything”
“are there any Llandudno hotels that are NOT up for sale”:
“…a rapidly growing proportion of them are from Asian or Eastern European ethnicity.”
“Ian and Steve H went to great lengths to find a billion Google articles”
Putting aside the fact that you clearly enjoy hyperbole I’ve attempted rationally to argue the case that Llandudno - far from being the deserted carcass of a once-famous holiday resort as you seemingly imply - is alive and well and, although I accept a lot could be done to safeguard what we once had, we’re in far, far better condition than I would have expected at this point in a prolonged and desperate period of austerity.
To take your post in more detail:
I am utterly bemused that you find any of my comments abusive
I think your reaction to my assertions is often belligerent and phrases such as “I detect your frustration and disappointment that I will not simply kow-tow to your opinion” I believe are, as I said, marginally abusive. You’re personalising a debate and by using a pejorative you’re moving close to abuse. Why? I can only assume you don’t like anyone to contradict your oft stated opinions and views with facts and thus seek to distract from their impact by creating a conflicted situation. I could well be wrong, but that’s the way it appears.
If you don’t agree, offer verifiable facts but please don’t descend to playground politics.
You mentioned 'bullying'... (that's borderline abusive in itself I would have thought)
I got the phrase from your not infrequent use of it, so I assumed you would be unperturbed by its use. I see you’re not, so perhaps you will exercise more caution with the word in future. There are, as I’m sure you know, many forms of bullying but the salient point about it is the use of influence to intimidate. You have significant influence (yes, really…) and by phrases such as the one I quoted above you’re seeking to garner sympathy by portraying yourself as the underdog. Despite, I might add, being an alpha male.
I have wracked my brains to try and fathom what you could possibly mean by that.
Debates become arguments fairly easily. A debate is usually a formal discussion where (unwritten) rules are followed to prevent actual and sometimes physical conflict emerging. But there’s another dimension to debates; the use of objectively garnered and independently verifiable data to prove or disprove points being made. Debates also draw very clear distinctions between what qualifies as fact and what qualifies as opinion. As you rightly point out, everyone is entitled to their opinion but without facts to establish the veracity or otherwise of that opinion, that’s all it is - an opinion. I could, for instance, argue that the moon landings never took place but there is a huge body of scientific and technical data to support the fact that they did.
Do you feel that the argument is going against you, given the weight of responses we have seen?
That sentence illustrates the main difference between you and me. In a debate, we’re trying to establish facts, whereas you seem to view it as individual winners and losers. You are a big presence on the forum, a major presence and never afraid to offer opinions on everything and anything. You’re the likeable bloke in the pub, the centre of amusement, the frustrated comic who loves the limelight and views the forum as a stage on which to perform.
And that’s perfectly fine so long as when you make points in serious debates you do so seriously and consider the facts without inserting throwaways into your arguments. Then it becomes political.
I suspect you also see arguments as having two sides. But arguments normally have as many sides or facets as there are contributors. I strongly suspect the ‘two sides’ concept is perpetuated by the Parliamentary structure, but I could be wrong.
I gave up believing official reports in 2004, when a very powerful Govt body proved that Saddam Hussein had missiles that could strike the UK in 45 minutes, and we had better get to war to sort him out!
And that’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. In that single paragraph you've done the following:
1. sought to muddy the waters by introducing unrelated points
2. Made misleading, unrelated and actually incorrect assertions (that’s not what the Dossier actually said)
3. Attempted to further sow confusion by deliberately conflating opposed meanings (“official”)
4. Done your usual throwaway to deflect the course of debate.
The rest is history..... so hopefully you will forgive me if I use the evidence I see around me, and think for myself from that point onwards.
Of course, and provided that evidence is properly documented and independently verified, then I have no quibble. But, once again, you’re conflating issues.
The first phrase - “The rest is history” - related to the preceding paragraph, which was itself deeply flawed (or plain wrong), and by using a sequential conjunction (so) you inextricably link your reasoning to a flawed statement. That equates to building a house with cardboard as the foundation.
But the most telling phrase is this: “(I) think for myself from that point onwards”. That implies that you have at a single stroke dismissed all the evidence which is contrary to your own assertions (first paragraph) and now make all your deductions on some subjective, inconsistent and possibly haphazard observations, which you’ve then generalised to fit the entire town. Much of what you claim to know as fact is actually contradictory, such as your comments about the shops in general. I’d show you it all, only this post is already overlong.
In summary I’ve no issue with your opinions whatsoever, provided you make it clear that’s what they are, and you stop stating things as fact which clearly aren’t. It also might be useful if you were to revise your appreciation of independent and verifiable studies. I agree they’re often far from perfect, sometimes draw incorrect conclusions, sometimes reveal influences, prejudices and are even sometimes sponsored by vested interests. But that’s what the academic structure is all about, however: by forcing reviewers to publish their data and - crucially - the ways in which it was obtained, it’s all subject to peer review and the inaccuracies found.
That’s partially what happened in the worst case of its kind: the MMR ‘research’ which not only sparked a wave of hysteria among worried mothers but led indirectly to the deaths and disabilities of many children. Eventually, Wakefield, whose research had caused it and whose methodology was found to be incredibly flawed was eventually struck off. Interestingly, however, that was through the efforts of a Sunday Times reporter (Brian Deede, I seem to remember ) and not simply peer review.
But when all the data Steve and I have located is examined and it’s all broadly saying the same thing, or reaching similar conclusions, then it stands to reason that a single person making random observations might, just conceivably, be less than accurate.