Please don't pretend to either know (or guess) my political affiliations - they're not relevant.
All I was asking you to do was justify your position that a certain place warranted a certain level of provision - which I'm not sure you actually did.
Whenever I engage on such forums, I always expect people to substantiate their statements with some basic facts - on the basis the facts will usually show whether an argument being advanced holds water or not.
If you are going to advocate a position which most don't agree with, you need to back it up with some facts, unless you are simply trolling with the expectation of getting a response.
I wasn't the only one who pointed out the deficiencies in the argument you were advancing - I assume you've sent similar messages to the other posters?
All I was asking you to do was justify your position that a certain place warranted a certain level of provision - which I'm not sure you actually did.
Whenever I engage on such forums, I always expect people to substantiate their statements with some basic facts - on the basis the facts will usually show whether an argument being advanced holds water or not.
If you are going to advocate a position which most don't agree with, you need to back it up with some facts, unless you are simply trolling with the expectation of getting a response.
I wasn't the only one who pointed out the deficiencies in the argument you were advancing - I assume you've sent similar messages to the other posters?