Your example shows the voter diconnect. Yes, pandering to his supporters who dislike mass migration, but what they object to would was not caused by Brexit, and would probably increase with Brexit, because it would limit European immigration, the problem is that the migrants to which the voters object are from Asia and africa, which would probabñu omcrease to fill the jobs otherwise filled by Europeans. However to the estabñosj,emt brexiters this would be  plus because African and Asian workers could work for less pay, whereas the displaced Europeans under the E.U. can not be discriminated against in this way.

I could, with a totally clear conscience, give you a G=G+1 for that!

Because, even though you've agreed with me, it says nothing to the real issues around Brexit that I believe I've raised (and surely, I would know). 

This, on a topic that you unnecessarily inserted!

Lets pretend, that you were not acting passive-aggressive, and actually gave me a G=G+1 for my post. I would not take it as an is an insult because nothing in the following seems to be insulting, just a statement of disagreement.

As an opportunity to defend my applying “G” here is why this post to you rates as a “G”, in that you have ignored my point, as stated. You started in post 928.27 with “Johnson – one point in his favour – able to stop mass-migration.

You refer to the absolute, e.g. false, assumption regarding “real” reason for Brexit. This is false. Yes, we agree that mass migration is an issue in the Brexit vote. But if one polls voters as to an example of what is bad about mass migration, there reference is not mass E.U. migration but the mass migration from former British colonies, and other non E.U. countries. E.g. as I stated, this is a dishonest point in his favour because nothing in Brexit deals with the mass migration  of which  the probrixit voters objected to.

If Boris wins a 1 November election,  Britain and the Brexit supporters will still lose, because their motivation for such a vote is based on false propaganda, not historic or economic facts.

I am not off topic, because your post pointing to immigration, introduced by you (not inserted by me, unnecessarily or otherwise), is that to which I was referring.

In addition, you also deserve a “G” because in using the word, “real” passive-aggressive absolute, you don´t define any real issues, leaving me just with a misunderstanding of what is a “real” problem of mass migration, not dealt with under Brexit.

RGoss99 said:

many questions asked by a person, are probably ones that might or should have been asked by others following the discussion

And who's remarks and opinion should not be diminished or elevated by an invented scoreboard.

What invented score board. If you object to the criteria I use, why be a passive-aggressive coward, Better to be specific and say what points you are objecting to, and we can have an honest discussion.

Sorry that you object to my objection that there be a criteria and score board, when we can just "have an honest discussion". 

Seriously, you are so funny,  when all formalizing  a totally random sort of discourse on a forum.

I mean, sometime we get political, sometime righteously anrgy, sometimes funny, but being rated for our posts seems rather... petty.

G=G+1 non seq, considering none of your examples are applicable to my protocol as to why a "G" is assigned to a particular post.

Protocol...assigned to a post, and rated, even.

You and I are probably quite similar in political views. The essential differences being that you choose to have a standard of rating people, whereas, I choose to regard humans worth on a different standard.

Little hope for someone being 99, LOL and who still doesn’t know anything about the G point and most of the time doesn’t know wether he is coming or going!