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

Can it get any lower?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    ei.sdraob wrote: »

    I dont know! ask your fellow NO campaigner @noodledog who brought it up


    /

    Thats a no voter who posted on an Internet Bulletin Board. Not a campaigner. ell not in my books. Most of the people here are just voters expressing their views, not campaigning. You must be confusing them with you :)

    Stating that the No Campain has suggested that the Lisbon vote has any thing to do with Peadophilia is silly in the extreme, when it was guy some poster on the internetz.


  • Options
    #33
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    w00t wrote: »
    Thats a no voter who posted on an Internet Bulletin Board. Not a campaigner. ell not in my books. Most of the people here are just voters expressing their views, not campaigning. You must be confusing them with you :)

    Here's the thing though, the Yes campaign on boards.ie use things that are in the treaty as reasons to vote Yes so it's not a surprise those reasons can be very similar. However given that most No campaigners on boards.ie quote things that are not in the treaty it would quite surprising that they are saying very similar things, unless they are communicating with each other, almost like a campaign of some kind.


  • Options
    #34
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Can it get any lower?

    the NO campaign did it again! they sunk to a new low

    checkout the new adverts they have here (screenshot attached)

    on top right

    :eek:


  • Options
    #35
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    the NO campaign did it again! they sunk to a new low

    checkout the new adverts they have here (screenshot attached)

    on top right

    :eek:

    There are new No posters going up all over the place. How do fringe groups get the large sums of money for these? And no one try to bull**** me and say it's from the party faithful, they'd all have to be giving 500 Euro each.


  • Options
    #36
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,065 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    meglome wrote: »
    Here's the thing though, the Yes campaign on boards.ie use things that are in the treaty as reasons to vote Yes

    Firstly, I know I'm par-quoting you and may be reading in to something you didn't mean... but

    are you kidding me?

    Economical and political repercussions... character assassinations... gross generalisations and smear campaigning about the No 'side'...

    ...all things that some Yes voters have used to exasperate their reasons for voting that way.

    Stepping outside of the context of the treaty as a means of arguing their preferences is in no way exclusive to the No voters on this forum


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    meglome wrote: »
    There are new No posters going up all over the place. How do fringe groups get the large sums of money for these? And no one try to bull**** me and say it's from the party faithful, they'd all have to be giving 500 Euro each.

    One thing I haven't liked about the recent fall in printing costs is the proliferation of free newspapers, fliers and posters. Those posters cost SFA to get done up.


  • Options
    #38
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Firstly, I know I'm par-quoting you and may be reading in to something you didn't mean... but

    are you kidding me?

    Economical and political repercussions... character assassinations... gross generalisations and smear campaigning about the No 'side'...

    ...all things that some Yes voters have used to exasperate their reasons for voting that way.

    Stepping outside of the context of the treaty as a means of arguing their preferences is in no way exclusive to the No voters on this forum

    Here's the thing. The No campaign opened the door on pretty much any dirty trick you can think of, all very American style. I really don't agree with it and would wish it never happened. However I'm a also realist, sometimes in a shít storm you might well have to get your hands dirty. I admit it, I have dirty hands.


  • Options
    #39
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    meglome wrote: »
    Here's the thing though, the Yes campaign on boards.ie use things that are in the treaty as reasons to vote Yes so it's not a surprise those reasons can be very similar. However given that most No campaigners on boards.ie quote things that are not in the treaty it would quite surprising that they are saying very similar things, unless they are communicating with each other, almost like a campaign of some kind.

    There is a Yes campaign on boards.ie? Didn't know that.
    Just though most of you were a few people with strong yes views, though some have mentioned affiliations with political "Yes" campaigns.

    The bit I have highlighted in bold? You are suggesting that No people might be communicating with each other or how else would they be using similar arguments? And if they are it is therefore a campaign?

    I'm embarrassed for you tbh.


  • Options
    #40
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    w00t wrote: »
    There is a Yes campaign on boards.ie? Didn't know that.
    Just though most of you were a few people with strong yes views, though some have mentioned affiliations with political "Yes" campaigns.

    I think the Yes people on boards have learned from each other and formed a somewhat unified front in the face of all the bull****. Campaign maybe?
    w00t wrote: »
    The bit I have highlighted in bold? You are suggesting that No people might be communicating with each other or how else would they be using similar arguments? And if they are it is therefore a campaign?

    I'm embarrassed for you tbh.

    I'm saying if people use things that are not in the treaty I'd assume that there would be lot of different things. Give the fixation on certain things that are not in the treaty I'd assume some sort of campaign.
    w00t wrote: »
    I'm embarrassed for you tbh.

    No problem.


  • Options
    #41
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    meglome wrote: »



    I'm saying if people use things that are not in the treaty I'd assume that there would be lot of different things. Give the fixation on certain things that are not in the treaty I'd assume some sort of campaign.

    eh no.

    That is not what you said. I already quoted what you said. You were quite surprised they were saying similar things. Unless, they were communicating and therefore it was an organised campaign

    However given that most No campaigners on boards.ie quote things that are not in the treaty it would quite surprising that they are saying very similar things, unless they are communicating with each other, almost like a campaign of some kind.

    I am even more embarrassed for you now.

    You know your stuff regarding the Yes info too. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    w00t wrote: »
    eh no.

    That is not what you said. I already quoted what you said. You were quite surprised they were saying similar things. Unless, they were communicating and therefore it was an organised campaign

    However given that most No campaigners on boards.ie quote things that are not in the treaty it would quite surprising that they are saying very similar things, unless they are communicating with each other, almost like a campaign of some kind.

    Y-e-s. Indeed. If they are saying similar things that are not in the treaty where are they getting them from. Why do they keep saying them, even after they are shown to be wrong? Maybe it's an organised campaign of some type.

    I can try reword that another time if you like, if it's still not clear.
    w00t wrote: »
    I am even more embarrassed for you now.

    No problem. I didn't care the first time either.


  • Options
    #43
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    meglome wrote: »
    Y-e-s. Indeed. If they are saying similar things that are not in the treaty where are they getting them from. Why do they keep saying them, even after they are shown to be wrong? Maybe it's an organised campaign of some type.

    I can try reword that another time if you like, if it's still not clear.



    No problem. I didn't care the first time either.

    I think they got them off the internet. It seems obvious they are not organised.

    No need to re word. You came across well :)


  • Options
    #44
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    w00t wrote: »
    I think they got them off the internet. It seems obvious they are not organised.

    No need to re word. You came across well :)

    I think you'll find a lot of people at least suspect them of being organised. Too many new sign-ups saying similar things.


  • Options
    #45
    w00t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭w00t


    meglome wrote: »
    I think you'll find a lot of people at least suspect them of being organised. Too many new sign-ups saying similar things.


    Conspiracy forum that way > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

    :)

    Organised? /Fail


  • Options
    #46
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    w00t wrote: »
    Conspiracy forum that way > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

    :)

    Organised? /Fail

    Well I'm sure then it must be just an up-swelling of the general public all signing up to boards.ie with a similar message. Completely random, I'm sure. I've seen the light. Thanks.


  • Options
    #47
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    doesnt stop Coir going on about it



    see UKIP leaflet and taxi driver thread



    I dont know! ask your fellow NO campaigner @noodledog who brought it up



    another personal attack, maybe you should address the NO guy who keeps claiming Lisbon would introduce death penalty (yet another stinking lie)




    except the ones on the NO side smell very rotten


    /

    I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for voting one way or the other.
    I'm voting No.
    That's my choice, I have a right to that choice, I'm not trying to influence anyone else and I'm not in any way affiliated with Coir etc... nor do I agree with their scare tactics and find them distasteful.
    I pointed out that there are lies and deciet on both sides and naturally those on opposssing side will consider the crimes of their opposites to be worse than the ones they are perpetuating.
    If you could accept that there are people who will be voting No for legitimate reasons as oppossed to being flat earth society members as you seem to be convinced of you might end up not being so highly strung.
    Lisbon isn't a personal issue, but when you instantly affiliate people with loony groups based simply on which way they are voting you start to make it personal, something which I have no interest in, even if I have let myself down and retaliated previously I have no intention of rising to your petty mindedness in the future, although that is easier said than done at times.

    Glazers Out!



Advertisement