British monarch references painted over on street signs.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Apparently the Brits have been nicking our road sign resources for years to put up in those fake, plastic Paddy pubs that they actually believe are a true representation of a proper Irish pub

You will find that true republicans are against obliterating signs of our past. I have likened the people doing this to those who bang drums outside churches. They are trolls and you and Mary and your likes are being trolled.
Very easily it would seem.
Personally I favour the truth about our history, which is a history of simple subjugation with the aid of some of the indigenous people, (the only way 'subjugation' is possible for any length of time actually) and it's eventual overthrow (with the aid of the greater amount of people)
Street names, building names are proud reminders of that history.

Del.Monte

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will find that true republicans are against obliterating signs of our past. I have likened the people doing this to those who bang drums outside churches. They are trolls and you and Mary and your likes are being trolled.
Very easily it would seem.
Personally I favour the truth about our history, which is a history of simple subjugation with the aid of some of the indigenous people, (the only way 'subjugation' is possible for any length of time actually) and it's eventual overthrow (with the aid of the greater amount of people)
Street names, building names are proud reminders of that history.

Would that be like the Nelson Pillar, the Walker monument in Derry, the Victoria monument in Dun Laoghaire to name but a few pieces of handiwork of 'true' republicans.

FrancieBrady

Del.Monte wrote: »

Would that be like the Nelson Pillar, the Walker monument in Derry, the Victoria monument in Dun Laoghaire to name but a few pieces of handiwork of 'true' republicans.

Yes it would.
Reactionary and silly demonstrations like the above are akin to the worst strains of reactionary empire adulation.
It is understandable after a period of subjugation and overweening triumphalism from 'one side'.
It's a physical form of trolling.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it would.
Reactionary and silly demonstrations like the above are akin to the worst strains of reactionary empire adulation.
It is understandable after a period of subjugation and overweening triumphalism from 'one side'.
It's a physical form of trolling.

Understandable that terrorists would set off a bomb in middle of the busiest street in the capital? you consider that 'trolling'?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Understandable that terrorists would set off a bomb in middle of the busiest street in the capital? you consider that 'trolling'?

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

What?

A Little Pony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you deflecting to here exactly?

Just trying to understand how you can dismiss an act of terrorism so lightly

You must be new around here if it surprises you.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dismissed the bombing of nelsons pillar as 'physical trolling'

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was. It was a bomb designed to remove the pillar and to 'outrage' the expected few. The same idea behind the painting out of names.

I didn't 'dismiss it' I said I 'understand' why it happens and I gave you my opinion of it.

Understanding something is NOT dismissing it.

to describe setting off a bomb in the middle of the busiest street in the capital as 'physical trolling' is dismissing it. To put it in the same category as painting out names is dismissing it. and on top of that they weren't competent enough to do it properly.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

Did I say it was right? Must have missed that.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have outdone yourself with this one Francie. Apparently planting a bomb to blow something up is just trolling. Sure why doesn't everyone just plant bombs to things they don't like or agree with. Would save time using verbal argument.

Did I say it was right? Must have missed that.

Read between the lines, pretty much, yeah.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to describe setting off a bomb in the middle of the busiest street in the capital as 'physical trolling' is dismissing it. To put it in the same category as painting out names is dismissing it. and on top of that they weren't competent enough to do it properly.

Dismissing it as what?

*Your faux outrage maybe what the bomber intended to provoke. Just saying.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Read between the lines, pretty much, yeah.

Deosn't say much for your reading skills when I have clearly stated what I think of the people engaged in this. But anyway. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dismissing it as what?

*Your faux outrage maybe what the bomber intended to provoke. Just saying.

dismissing it as physical trolling. Was that not clear?

any outrage is directed at your dismissal of the act. You seem to think it was acceptable. the act itself was pure incompetence, typical of the people who perpetrated it.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

dismissing it as physical trolling. Was that not clear?

any outrage is directed at your dismissal of the act. You seem to think it was acceptable. the act itself was pure incompetence, typical of the people who perpetrated it.

I didn't 'dismiss it'. Where did I do that?

You might not like that I called it 'physical trolling' but that is your problem. If I called the Dublin-Monaghan bombings 'British Trolling of the Republic', would that be 'dismissing it'?

The bomb at the top of Nelson's Pillar was designed to destroy the pillar and so cause outrage. That is physical trolling.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't 'dismiss it'. Where did I do that?

You might not like that I called it 'physical trolling' but that is your problem. If I called the Dublin-Monaghan bombings 'British Trolling of the Republic', would that be 'dismissing it'?

The bomb at the top of Nelson's Pillar was designed to destroy the pillar and so cause outrage. That is physical trolling.

it is clear that you find the act acceptable so i will leave it here. I'm sure only those in certain circles find it acceptable.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is clear that you find the act acceptable so i will leave it here. I'm sure only those in certain circles find it acceptable.

:D Hilarious. I have clearly said what I 'find' about these acts. Ridiculous jump to a conclusion made, yet again.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D Hilarious. I have clearly said what I 'find' about these acts. Ridiculous jump to a conclusion made, yet again.

as weasily an answer as ever.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as weasily an answer as ever.

I am waiting for you to prove what you said. It should be easy, just cut and paste where I condoned or appreciated these acts.

Would you define somebody who is unable to admit they are wrong and who keeps on trying to infer something that is simply not there, as 'weasily'?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am waiting for you to prove what you said. It should be easy, just cut and paste where I condoned or appreciated these acts.

Would you define somebody who is unable to admit they are wrong and who keeps on trying to infer something that is simply not there, as 'weasily'?

shall we go around in circles again? you dismissed it as physical trolling. placed it in the same league as idiots painting over road signs. and i never said you condoned or appreciated the act. stop moving the goalposts.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

shall we go around in circles again? you dismissed it as physical trolling. placed it in the same league as idiots painting over road signs. and i never said you condoned or appreciated the act. stop moving the goalposts.

I 'called' it physical trolling. That isn't dismissing it. :rolleyes: Good lord are you that desperate to be offended/outraged?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I 'called' it physical trolling. That isn't dismissing it. :rolleyes: Good lord are you that desperate to be offended/outraged?

around and around and around we go.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

around and around and around we go.

...and back to you getting caught out,
Post the sentence where I condoned this, or think it is a good thing.

*awaits some deflecting slur or more faux outrage.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...and back to you getting caught out,
Post the sentence where I condoned this, or think it is a good thing.

*awaits some deflecting slur or more faux outrage.

quote the post where i said you condoned it or thought it was a good thing? According to your rules i have to have used those exact words. No inference is allowed. Do you see how tedious your debating style is?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

quote the post where i said you condoned it or thought it was a good thing? According to your rules i have to have used those exact words. No inference is allowed. Do you see how tedious your debating style is?

ohnonotgmail wrote:

it is clear that you find the act acceptable so i will leave it here.

'Tedious' that you keep putting your foot in it? :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Tedious' that you keep putting your foot in it? :rolleyes:

No, it needs to be an exact quote as per your own rules. you cant expect other people to stick to your debating rules if you dont do so yourself.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, it needs to be an exact quote as per your own rules. you cant expect other people to stick to your debating rules if you dont do so yourself.

Jesus. Unbelievable squirming or weasling.

Keep digging if you get a kick from it.