Can we ban all references to Lenihan's health ?

Liam Byrne

Any time Lenihan's many monumental cock-ups are raised in discussion, someone comes along and tries to play the sympathy card.

His health DOES NOT MATTER.

If he was competent and hadn't lied or made "mistakes" or disastrous judgements, then fair play.

But he's being paid to do a job that he's done disastrously, with one miles-off estimate and knee-jerk reaction after another.

I'm sick to death of people trying to deflect from this fact by raising is health.

If we're paying someone €100,000 a year or whatever, they're either able for the job or they're not.

Lenihan has chosen to stay on to do the job, and so should do it. Properly. End of.

If a heart surgeon screws up your auntie's operation because he has the flu, do you say "ah, the poor thing had the flu" ?

No sympathy card or caveat.

Steve

Cool thread title, Cowen-esque content let you down though.

How is this feedback?

Liam Byrne

Steve wrote: »

Cool thread title, Cowen-esque content let you down though.

I have no idea what "Cowen-esque content" means....in fact, I'd probably take it as an insult because there are no lies, blame deflection or waffle in there.

It's "feedback" because it's prompted by posts.

If there is another forum for "mod requests" and suggestions re thread content, then let me know and I'll gladly post it there.

P. Breathnach

I'd have more respect for the request if it were not accompanied by an attack on Lenihan.

It's a fair achievement to take a thread off-topic in the opening post.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd have more respect for the request if it were not accompanied by an attack on Lenihan.

It's a fair achievement to take a thread off-topic in the opening post.

Jeez, statements of facts are viewed as "attacks" now ? :rolleyes:

Or are you suggesting that Lenihan is competent and has done a good job ?

Steve

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have no idea what "Cowen-esque content" means....in fact, I'd probably take it as an insult because there are no lies, blame deflection or waffle in there.

It's "feedback" because it's prompted by posts.

It was more 'subject obfuscation' that got my attention. The title of your post got my attention, the subject matter of it neither expanded on that nor had anything to do with it. My correlation comment is based on recent experience, I don't think I'd be alone there.

If there is another forum for "mod requests" and suggestions re thread content, then let me know and I'll gladly post it there.

PM the mods of the forum you're concerned with. Boards is big - really big in terms of discussion topics and so applying this as a site rule may not be easy or appropriate.

Liam Byrne

Steve wrote: »

It was more 'subject obfuscation' that got my attention. The title of your post got my attention, the subject matter of it neither expanded on that nor had anything to do with it.

It does in a way, because it's only raised as a "trump card" by his supporters in that specific context.....as deflection from his track record.

That was the reason I mentioned it.

Overheal

Are we to have a new feedback thread everytime you take exception to the point of view of others? We aren't exactly talking bigotry or defamation here either.

In this case why can't you just refute the other poster's central argument, which appears to weakly hinge upon the health of a politician?

Nevyn

His health is a factor in if he would be well enough to take on the lead of the FF party and heavens forbid he puts in a bit for tea shock.

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

His health is a factor in if he would be well enough to take on the lead of the FF party and heavens forbid he puts in a bit for tea shock.

I understand health topics in that context (for example the famous Sarah Palin slogan: One 72yr old's heartbeat away from the Presidency) but the OP is arguing against "Sympathy" arguments. All of which is discussible, imo, especially when it's so easy to debate.

Wibbs

IMHO On the basis of the sitewide rule of "don't be a dick" then I would agree, references to his health as a point scoring tactic, should be avoided. On both sides. Reasoned debate should not be overshadowed by subjective sentiment. At least that should be something approaching a standard.

Zaph

Steve wrote: »

PM the mods of the forum you're concerned with.

^^ This.

This is not something that requires a site-wide rule, and consequently PMing the mods of the appropriate forum(s) is the way to approach this. It certainly doesn't warrant a Feedback thread, and especially not one where people will snipe at one another until somebody gets themselves banned from this forum. To save everyone from such a scenario I'm locking this thread.