Dave, what is it that LIB has on you guys? It appears he makes you guys nervous!

Naturally, I’m disappointed with the way things are turning out here, but I suppose if people can foolishly regard it as an argument winner to refer to another’s political affiliation, real or supposed; and other people can gormlessly take this as a serious calumny on their character, this is the necessary consequence. For God’s sake, everybody, GROW UP. This is not BFP!

The CADRES poll has no sound scientific basis and is a complete farce. It is merely a cheap political gimmick to reassure a Barbadian public that was given a litany of promises that clearly haven’t been fulfilled.

How can I substantiate my claim of the poll being farcical? Well, according to the poll the DLP and BLP are tied in terms of their performance on employment. Is it logical to compare a 14 year period to a 19 month period? Furthermore, isn’t the unemployment rate at the highest now over the last 15 years? The poll is a joke and should be ignored!

Scientist,
Is this the first poll that Cadres has conducted? Were the others a farce also? Or you only have a grouse with this result? I would be too if I were you.
I’m counting on you to conduct the next poll accurately. OK?

Remember there are polls and there are polls!!!

See if anyone can spot the problem with following comment from CBC’s web site on the poll

“Mr Wickham says Barbadians approve of government’s performance in the areas of Education, Housing and Lands, Transport, Tourism, Road Works, the ECONOMY, Health & the QEH.

But Barbadians have given the DLP a failing grade in the area of Employment, and Mr Wickham says Barbadians appear not to be generally impressed with the economic profile of government’s handling of jobs, the ECONOMY, and the cost of living. ”

Can you say in one breath that in one breath Barbadians approve of what the DLP has done for the economy and in another breath say they are not impressed. It has to be one or the other!!

@Themis
Much as I often enjoy your interventions, if you thing that credibility is tradeable then let me assure you otherwise. When a foreigner states that he has no political affiliations in a country but a national (or supposed) claims (not suggests) otherwise, then the foreigner’s objectivity is compromised. That, mon ami, is NOT trivial: it is my currency that I am not biased.

Not gormless (chiefly British : lacking intelligence).

@AH
Leaving Bim and heading north, not Boston immediately, but close. Sorry we could not get that meeting sorted out, but look out for me anyway.

s/b …if you THINK…

DD esquire, The nation news paper has let their intent be known via pro illegal immigration editorials, and they have to my mind solidify this position by allowing all manner of pro illegal immigration articles, and writers, while not given equal space to those who do not support illegal immigraion. I know,.. next you will be asking for specifics.

If you want to boycott the Advocate, go right ahead, I have no interest in so doing neither would I object to you initiating one.

@Themis, again with due respect. You know the adages ‘repetition make truth’ and ‘no smoke without fire’? Why should I now have to deal with questions about my objectivity? As I also said, every ‘anonymous’ commentator is a real person and they do talk, and things do spread, including muck. Play and change the word to whatever may affect you most. If you remain neutral, that’s good. I had thought that this space had a certain integrity–it’s bandied about. But…

I sent David separately a link to my blog, that essentially covers what is below. It was an accident that was perhaps due to happen. I offered a ‘get out of jail’ option to 2 people and the rest is interesting history. For those who are interested, read on about the prisoner’s dilemma. It tells a lot about groups whose collective interests are not clear but whose individual interests seem to be selfish. You saw it with CMC/CBC on Thursday.
+++++++++++++++++

One of the most interesting exercises in economics is to try to see what happens if one plays the prisoner’s dilemma. Borrowing from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, Its essence is what happens if you have two confined people and give each the choice of freedom with an offer like:

“You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I’ll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I’ll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.”

The “dilemma” faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest.
+++++++++++
Those who do not understand can ask me for clarification elsewhere.
++++++++++
It also touches on how party divisions will possibly lead to a major downfall.

Remember, I’ve said collaboration = +/+; confrontation = -/+.

I offered a chance to be collaborative.

Bye Bye folks. I will be leaving you for a while. I am off to work with Mickey and Minnie. I may return sometime next month

Remember how not too long ago LIB said on this blog that he was going to speak to the British High commission re allegations made by the BLP sylvan greenidge about Hartley Henry’s alleged sexual assault of a U.S. political consultant?

I believe he also said he was going to check with U.S. authorities with regards to the same matter.

That is just one of the things that should make you go hmmmm.

When challenged by I think Veritas and threats made about a lawsuit,some swift back pedalling was done.

Everything isn’t always as it appears.

Just wait and see that he will not leave this site.

It is the most popular blogging forum and allows him the opportunity to feed his ego.

There is something he said some time ago that David and other bloggers did not seem to pick up on and I have been silently pondering on that comment.

Enough said.

Some MAUBB out with it. Let us hear it man.

Themis said:

“But, LIB, with all respect; your objectivity cannot be compromised by an unproven accusation from an anonymous blogger!”

Themis, your statement ignores the reality of the situation. “Unproven accusations” are made all the time on these blogs and very often, they are accepted as truth by its readers.

There is a saying that goes:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still at home putting on its sneakers”

Unfortunately, there are many good persons whose reputations are sullied by posters on BFP and BU. That is just the regrettable nature of Bajan Blogs. It is as if these posters don’t see any value in the reputation of others.

What I found ironic is that David became very upset with LIB a week ago when he believed that LIB was “tarring BU with no concrete basis for doing so”. For the exact quote see below:

“@LIB

We have to press on because you wrote a blog tarring BU with no concrete basis for doing so” (made August 15 2009 at 11:00)

Based on the words above even David sees the value in protecting one’s reputation and I certainly don’t blame LIB for trying to do so. I always found him brave for posting without the protection of Anonymity.

My point to you Themis is this: BU Bloggers may be anonymous but that doesn’t mean that they are innocuous.

Mia will be PM in 8 years. All she has to do is wait. Very much as Thompson had upheavals on his way to the throne, she too will have hers.
I see both of them as just wanting to be PM. Neither has a great vision or motivation to improve the lives of the majority of Barbadians.
They just want the prestige that comes with being PM

LIB
You are too stuffed up with yourself. You are constantly trying to impress us here on this blog. You have failed. You were off to catch a plane half an hour ago and you are still here blogging.
Man catch the plane and do not come back.

Mr. Adrian, How come you say you gine show LiB how you ‘have come to know you’? How you know him, then? What gine on?

@Anonlegal, yes, an anonymous person can defame. But how can an anonymous person be defamed. Reputation is one’s standing in the eyes of others. How could one’s standing be lowered or harmed if no one knows who you are? I agree LIB is known and can be defamed. But how can you and I be defamed?

immorality….wicking…..these stories the nation should be exposing.

Adrian Hinds aka Tall_boy // August 23, 2009 at 4:14 PM

“She could be dead in 8 years too.”

The woman is obese and smokes heavily. She is also way past forty years old. Wah you think?

Incidentally sylvan sexual preference is none of your business.

Themis,

I agree wholeheartedly that an anonymous person can not be defamed. However the posters on these blogs don’t limit their defamatory comments to anonymous bloggers. There are many persons who are known in the community that are seen in a negative light because of the comments posted on these blogs.

My comment was more directed at the suggestion that LIB should “relax”. If I were in his position, I would also seek to set the record straight.

You and I may have the sense to know that unproven accusations from an anonymous blogger mean nothing. However there are many who will believe the comments posted on this blog and may start to question his objectivity based on the comment made.

wicking corrupting the media. wicking between some media people and one particular politician. the nation should write bout that.

@Anonlegal:
You and I may have the sense to know that unproven accusations from an anonymous blogger mean nothing. However there are many who will believe the comments posted on this blog and may start to question his objectivity based on the comment made.
————————————————-
There you go again. First of all

a falsehood does not = defamation. neither is an unproven accusation equal to defamation, which includes your yet to be proven ” statement.

Would you want to suggest that Sylvan is defaming someone with his comments above?