Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…5051535556…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    Only so many times and ways this can be said!

    Despite Scofflaw's protestations, it is a bias against the current SF party though. The IRA no longer exist and SF cannot have links to a non existent organisation.

    I understand you don't wish or cannot be arsed to do anything about it, but the point has to be made.


  • Options
    #1563
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Despite Scofflaw's protestations, it is a bias against the current SF party though. The IRA no longer exist and SF cannot have links to a non existent organisation.

    I understand you don't wish or cannot be arsed to do anything about it, but the point has to be made.

    Are you seriously arguing for non-biased discussion of political parties and their policies?


  • Options
    #1564
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »

    I understand you don't wish or cannot be arsed to do anything about it, but the point has to be made.

    That must be it, plus some added anti-SF bias for good measure. ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1565
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    nesf wrote: »
    Are you seriously arguing for non-biased discussion of political parties and their policies?

    Absolutely not. Moderation should be unbiased though.
    I am arguing that making an allegation about SF being connected currently to an illegal and non existent organisation by the use of the name 'SF/IRA' is wrong and regularly disrupts threads on here.
    Again, I have no problem with them being connected historically on relevant threads.


  • Options
    #1566
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    As asked previously and nobody answered, who exactly is saying they are currently linked?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    As asked previously and nobody answered, who exactly is saying they are currently linked?

    One example picked at random. The forum is littered with similar.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92626637&postcount=575
    It's a thread discussing 'current' events.


  • Options
    #1568
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    And an example of Mods setting very clear unambiguous parameters for fair debate when they so wish.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90069154&postcount=1


  • Options
    #1569
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And an example of Mods setting very clear unambiguous parameters for fair debate when they so wish.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90069154&postcount=1
    I hope you're being sarcastic. Another "blanket ban" on words; if I said something was a conspiracy theory - regardless of whether it was or not and regardless of whether it was calling that person a conspiracy theorist - I'd be banned from the thread. Makes no sense.


  • Options
    #1570
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I hope you're being sarcastic. Another "blanket ban" on words; if I said something was a conspiracy theory - regardless of whether it was or not and regardless of whether it was calling that person a conspiracy theorist - I'd be banned from the thread. Makes no sense.

    No, I mean mods insisting that something be observed.
    Do not accuse somebody of dishonesty unless you can prove it.

    Do not accuse a political party of being the same thing as an illegal organisation unless you can prove it. i.e. SF/IRA
    Pretty easy to make that a forum rule, if you wanted to.


  • Options
    #1571
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    One example picked at random. The forum is littered with similar.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92626637&postcount=575
    It's a thread discussing 'current' events.

    Debatable if the poster is using that as a name, and not using the connection. These other examples? I'm not aware of any others whatsoever, there's no point making a rule if it's that rare.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And an example of Mods setting very clear unambiguous parameters for fair debate when they so wish.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90069154&postcount=1

    Nothing to do with your point, calling users shills is specifically catered for in the charter. The warning is general in nature for thread maintenance purposes, it was turning into a train wreck.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1573
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    Debatable if the poster is using that as a name, and not using the connection. These other examples? I'm not aware of any others whatsoever, there's no point making a rule if it's that rare.

    You had to intervene yourself a day ago, specifically referring to the use of 'SF/IRA'
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92629308&postcount=610


  • Options
    #1574
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Despite Scofflaw's protestations, it is a bias against the current SF party though. The IRA no longer exist and SF cannot have links to a non existent organisation.

    I understand you don't wish or cannot be arsed to do anything about it, but the point has to be made.

    A big part of the reason there is that it cannot be shown that the IRA don't exist (secret organisations are funny that way), and it remains the case that until extremely recently it definitely did exist, and SF were linked to it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1575
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A big part of the reason there is that it cannot be shown that the IRA don't exist (secret organisations are funny that way), and it remains the case that until extremely recently it definitely did exist, and SF were linked to it.

    And it is the case that until recently Fianna Fail were led by a man who was found to have lied to a tribunal so the same rules apply?


  • Options
    #1576
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A big part of the reason there is that it cannot be shown that the IRA don't exist (secret organisations are funny that way), and it remains the case that until extremely recently it definitely did exist, and SF were linked to it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    :rolleyes:
    It cannot be shown that unicorns don't exist either.
    That is just clutching at straws, as an argument, in fairness Scofflaw.
    The IRA have disbanded to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the peace process, if somebody implies that they still exist then the burden of proof should be on them.


  • Options
    #1577
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You had to intervene yourself a day ago, specifically referring to the use of 'SF/IRA'
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92629308&postcount=610

    Yeah, the same thread as the post you linked to. I thought the forum was, to quote, "littered" with it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1578
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1579
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Speculate all you want, but you have to prove it if you want to name a party 'SF/IRA'
    Even Paisley stopped using it but it is still acceptable around here :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1580
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Surely the fact that Sinn Fein are selling IRA mugs and t-shirts on their website settles this debate conclusively?!


  • Options
    #1581
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    P
    We draw the line specifically at issues of libel, thus specific allegations where these are libelous. Where such allegations are common currency, so common as to not constitute libel, we don't object.
    Prevalence is not a defence to defamation.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A big part of the reason there is that it cannot be shown that the IRA don't exist (secret organisations are funny that way), and it remains the case that until extremely recently it definitely did exist, and SF were linked to it.
    Except there is a presumption of falsity, and it falls on a defendant to prove truth.

    If I wrote a popular blog and constantly referred to sitting SF/IRA TDs, without actually naming any of them, then all of those TDs would have a prima facie cause of action against me.

    The burden of proof falls on me to establish a defence of truth, that yes, members of this group have an IRA association.

    The same applies to the publication of material on this website.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    It cannot be shown that unicorns don't exist either.
    That is just clutching at straws, as an argument, in fairness Scofflaw.
    The IRA have disbanded to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the peace process, if somebody implies that they still exist then the burden of proof should be on them.

    This logic-chopping is millimetre precise and completely irrelevant, I'm afraid.
    conorh91 wrote:
    The same applies to the publication of material on this website.

    And I think at this point I'm going to have to remind people that making legalistic threats is not acceptable. Nobody has ever sued anybody for use of the term SF/IRA, and frankly it'll be a cold day in hell before such a case would succeed in an Irish law court - so put the barrack-room lawyer act down and step away from it. You've done your case absolutely no favours here.

    You've asked, we've said no. If you try to threaten us to make us comply, we'll send the lot of you off the pitch, and you can nurse your sense of martyrdom on some other discussion forum. Clear?

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1583
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And I think at this point I'm going to have to remind people that making legalistic threats is not acceptable. Nobody has ever sued anybody for use of the term SF/IRA, so put the barrack-room lawyer act down and step away from it.

    You've asked, we've said no. If you try to threaten us to make us comply, we'll send the lot of you off the pitch, and you can nurse your sense of martyrdom on some other discussion forum. Clear?
    eh?

    I think you're confusing me with one of the above posters , or else a SF supporter. I'm just clarifying what looked like a misunderstanding of defamation in your post.


  • Options
    #1584
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    conorh91 wrote: »
    eh?

    I think you're confusing me with one of the above posters , or else a SF supporter. I'm just clarifying what I looked like a misunderstanding of defamation.

    Your sense of context is drastically faulty, then. And prevalence is in fact a defence to defamation. If a term like "SF/IRA" or the understanding that SF and the IRA have been linked is commonly stated throughout public discourse, as is the case, then the use of it by a poster here cannot be considered defamatory, because you lower someone's reputation in the eyes of the public by repeating something the general public already believe to be true about them.

    Nor can a group be defamed unless the claim can be taken to refer to a specific individual:
    In order to be actionable, a defamatory statement must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. This means that a defamation plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would understand that the statement was referring to him or her. Of course, if a blog post or online article identifies the plaintiff by name, this requirement will be easily met. The plaintiff need not be specifically named, however, if there are enough identifying facts that any (but not necessarily every) person reading or hearing it would reasonably understand it to refer to the plaintiff. For example, a statement that "a local policeman who recently had an auto accident had been seen drinking alcohol while on duty" would likely be actionable because the policeman could be identified based on his recent accident.

    Accordingly, defamatory statements about a group or class of people generally are not actionable by individual members of that group or class. There are two exceptions to this general rule that exist when:

    1. the group or class is so small that the statements are reasonably understood to refer to the individual in question; or
    2. the circumstances make it reasonable to conclude that the statement refers particularly to the individual in question.

    I apologise if I've incorrectly lumped you in with those using equally specious logic and legalistic quibbles to argue for a blanket ban on a term that reminds people of their recent history, but I hope you can see why it might have come about.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1585
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Your sense of context is drastically faulty, then. And prevalence is in fact a defence to defamation.
    This is incorrect. The defences to defamation are laid out in statute. Prevalence is not among them. I'm sure FreudianSlippers will oblige me in confirming that for you because you seem to think I'm approaching this from a position of a Shinner.
    Nor can a group be defamed unless the claim can be taken to refer to a specific individual:
    That's not true either.

    There's an authority on this which actually comes from a non-specific IRA association, where an un-named member of a GAA club sued News of the World, because a certain imputation was made about the club without naming anyone. it's a Supreme Court judgment called Duffy -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd, and was codified in law under s.10 of the Defamation Act 2009.

    I don't believe the term SF/ IRA creates a cause of action, but I do believe the term 'SF/IRA TDs' does, for example. Or 'members of the SF/IRA Executive', and so on.


  • Options
    #1586
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This logic-chopping is millimetre precise and completely irrelevant, I'm afraid.



    And I think at this point I'm going to have to remind people that making legalistic threats is not acceptable. Nobody has ever sued anybody for use of the term SF/IRA, and frankly it'll be a cold day in hell before such a case would succeed in an Irish law court - so put the barrack-room lawyer act down and step away from it. You've done your case absolutely no favours here.

    You've asked, we've said no. If you try to threaten us to make us comply, we'll send the lot of you off the pitch, and you can nurse your sense of martyrdom on some other discussion forum. Clear?

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Wow, that reaction was a bit ott. I never threatened anybody.
    Anyway I'm outta this one, somebody just took the ball home


  • Options
    #1587
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,978 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Scofflaw wrote: »



    And I think at this point I'm going to have to remind people that making legalistic threats is not acceptable. Nobody has ever sued anybody for use of the term SF/IRA, and frankly it'll be a cold day in hell before such a case would succeed in an Irish law court - so put the barrack-room lawyer act down and step away from it. You've done your case absolutely no favours here.

    You've asked, we've said no. If you try to threaten us to make us comply, we'll send the lot of you off the pitch, and you can nurse your sense of martyrdom on some other discussion forum. Clear?

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Exaggerate much?


  • Options
    #1588
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I don't believe the term SF/ IRA creates a cause of action, but I do believe the term 'SF/IRA TDs' does, for example. Or 'members of the SF/IRA Executive', and so on.

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1589
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    conorh91 wrote: »
    This is incorrect. The defences to defamation are laid out in statute. Prevalence is not among them. I'm sure FreudianSlippers will oblige me in confirming that for you because you seem to think I'm approaching this from a position of a Shinner.

    What is commonly held to be true about a person by the public cannot be defamatory, since it cannot lower the reputation of the person supposedly defamed in the eyes of the public.

    And I accept your statement that you're not simply joining in with the endless barrack-room lawyering from our SF supporters. Admittedly my reaction was a little harsh, but the tedious rounds of how many nits can be picked off the head of a pin make me irritable.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    That's not true either.

    There's an authority on this which actually comes from a non-specific IRA association, where an un-named member of a GAA club sued News of the World, because a certain imputation was made about the club without naming anyone. it's a Supreme Court judgment called Duffy -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd, and was codified in law under s.10 of the Defamation Act 2009.

    And was defamatory because it was regarded as sufficient to identify the club chairman, not because it defamed the group.
    I don't believe the term SF/ IRA creates a cause of action, but I do believe the term 'SF/IRA TDs' does, for example. Or 'members of the SF/IRA Executive', and so on.

    It's possible, but arguable, because, again, the term "SF/IRA" is common currency referring to connection between the two organisations, and would not therefore necessarily constitute a claim of actual membership of the IRA by any of the group so described. It can instead refer to their membership of SF and the link between SF and the IRA. If someone were to refer to Michael Martin as a Zanu-FF TD, nobody would take that to mean that he was really a member of the Zanu party.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1590
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    What is commonly held to be true about a person by the public cannot be defamatory, since it cannot lower the reputation of the person supposedly defamed in the eyes of the public.

    And I accept your statement that you're not simply joining in with the endless barrack-room lawyering from our SF supporters. Admittedly my reaction was a little harsh, but the tedious rounds of how many nits can be picked off the head of a pin make me irritable.



    And was defamatory because it was regarded as sufficient to identify the club chairman, not because it defamed the group.



    It's possible, but arguable, because, again, the term "SF/IRA" is common currency referring to connection between the two organisations, and would not therefore necessarily constitute a claim of actual membership of the IRA by any of the group so described. It can instead refer to their membership of SF and the link between SF and the IRA. If someone were to refer to Michael Martin as a Zanu-FF TD, nobody would take that to mean that he was really a member of the Zanu party.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I apologise to anybody who sees contributions to a 'discussion on the rules' as 'barrack room lawyering' or 'tedious'.
    I understand the very clear threat made to ban me and others for persisting with this and to be honest I would rather have my say. Also, I have never known anybody to get away with unacceptable behaviour on here by excusing it as being the result of being 'made irritable'. :rolleyes:
    I also object to the twice made insinuation that 'SF supporters' operate as a group on here and to being included in that 'group'.
    I am not a member of SF and do not 'support' them in the way inferred. I am a republican though. So ban away if this upsets or if you think it achieves anything for the forum, the question (annoying as it may be) needs to be asked of you Scofflaw.

    In what other public arena (other than anonymous internet forums) would a connection between the current SF party and a still existent IRA be allowed, without the person making, what would be seen as an 'allegation', being asked to present proof?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,478 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I apologise to anybody who sees contributions to a 'discussion on the rules' as 'barrack room lawyering' or 'tedious'.

    It's pretty tedious because there is no discussion on the rules. You raised a point you wanted the mods to examine. The mods have acknowledged your point, examined it and have decided not to pursue it. The reasons have been explained to you in immense detail. Your agreement with those reasons is not required.

    This was initially raised on page 97. 9 pages of raising the same point again and again, and the answer still hasn't changed. And it seems highly unlikely to change. So its tedious because there is no discussion, which involves acknowledging the response to your earlier point.
    I understand the very clear threat made to ban me and others for persisting with this and to be honest I would rather have my say.

    From what I saw Scofflaw was responding to amusing internet lawyer threats, they've been amazingly patient (9 pages...9!) on you persisting with this.
    In what other public arena (other than anonymous internet forums) would a connection between the current SF party and a still existent IRA be allowed, without the person making, what would be seen as an 'allegation', being asked to present proof?

    On the bus. In a pub. Outside a shop on the street. In a queue at the bank. On the Sligo-Dublin train. At the cinema (though obviously not when the movie is playing). At a library (though you have to whisper). I could go on.

    This is the internet lawyering tediousness - what would you do if someone on the street started talking about "SF/IRA"? Perform a citizens arrest?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement