SB's gone bonkers . . .

[Mark]

I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.

I should have put smiley - I wasn't suggesting the UK seriously adopts that kind of scheme.

[Arghiro]

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.

I should have put smiley - I wasn't suggesting the UK seriously adopts that kind of scheme.

What makes you think I was taking you seriously anyway?

[Mark]

They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

[Arghiro]

They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

Ooohh! I must go over & have a look, Maybe I can help out.

[Mark]

They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

Ooohh! I must go over & have a look, Maybe I can help out.

Why do I fear you'll be joining in on the other side!

Maybe that's the answer. If I'm on the irrational side of the dispute I get to read lots of nice rational posts. It's only the rational side that have a frustrating wade through other people's swivel eyed madness.

[Arghiro]

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.



& maybe a swift stab in the back.

[Mark]

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

& maybe a swift stab in the back.

I've calmed down significantly since this morning, I think I could laugh at it! A classic instance of taking forums far too seriously.