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…4142444647…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    No struggle at this end. So, is your problem with punctuation or just a fondness for red herrings?

    When in trouble morally...divert, divert, divert!
    The Vatican must be missing a spokesman.


  • Options
    #1293
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    When in trouble morally...divert, divert, divert!
    The Vatican must be missing a spokesman.

    Red herrings it is then.


  • Options
    #1294
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Nodin wrote: »
    True. I was referring to the man being "off limits" as opposed to a card being handed out.

    Emm, I didn't say he was off limis either. I'll get time to respond later. Also, this isn't the place for yet another "was Adams in the IRA" debate!

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



  • Options
    #1295
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    K-9 wrote: »
    Emm, I didn't say he was off limis either. I'll get time to respond later. Also, this isn't the place for yet another "was Adams in the IRA" debate!

    The question is why are people allowed to claim that while posts on claims relating to other people are deleted?


  • Options
    #1296
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Red herrings it is then.

    Still on divert.

    'A healthy dose of common sense' = subjective opinion.
    'Legal evidence' ? - please define it from 'illegal evidence' or would we be making a 'subjective' assessment again?
    'Witness Statements' = untested allegations, therefore any opinion on them is 'subjective'.

    Is that Boards policy, could we all do similar about anybody we choose without censure from mods?

    Why do you and others get special dispensation to say whatever you want about certain people?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    K-9 wrote: »
    Also, this isn't the place for yet another "was Adams in the IRA" debate!

    I'm doing my best not to be diverted from a more general question.


  • Options
    #1298
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Still on divert.

    'A healthy dose of common sense' = subjective opinion.
    'Legal evidence' ? - please define it from 'illegal evidence' or would we be making a 'subjective' assessment again?
    'Witness Statements' = untested allegations, therefore any opinion on them is 'subjective'.

    Is that Boards policy, could we all do similar about anybody we choose without censure from mods?

    Why do you and others get special dispensation to say whatever you want about certain people?
    Oh, my mistake - you're guilty of both straw man arguments and punctuation comprehension issues.


  • Options
    #1299
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh, my mistake - you're guilty of both straw man arguments and punctuation comprehension issues.

    We'll leave the question for the mods. Can't be bothered with your evasions today.


  • Options
    #1300
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh, my mistake - you're guilty of both straw man arguments and punctuation comprehension issues.
    I think you will find you are the one with the straw man argument, you have an opinion about Adams based on evidence you don't have facts.

    I respect you are entitled to post that opinion the issue here is others have opinions on people based on evidence and they aren't allowed to post them, that is the discussion here.

    We have done the dance on the politics thread many times on whether Adams was or wasn't a member of the IRA, it usually ends with those claiming it saying "sher everyone knows it" however that doesn't make it a fact. It is an opinion and all I and others are looking for is that same rules be applied to opinions on all men and women not just some!


  • Options
    #1301
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    I think you will find you are the one with the straw man argument,
    Why's that then?
    Villain wrote: »
    you have an opinion about Adams based on evidence

    Correct!

    And that's the point I was making.

    We all know that Adams was in the IRA. He's never been proven to have been so, just as Jimmy Saville was never proven to have been guilty of any crime, but we can all apply rudimentary critical faculties to form a conclusion outside a court of law - based on the evidence.

    I'm sure Gerry's current problems regarding his past don't play any role in this whole bunfight, but a dose of honesty about the ample evidence of his membership wouldn't go amiss alongside the rush to 'lack of proof'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    others have opinions on people based on evidence and they aren't allowed to post them, that is the discussion here.

    I saw no evidence to support the claims made in the pulled posts.


  • Options
    #1303
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    We all know that Adams was in the IRA. He's never been proven to have been so, just as Jimmy Saville was never proven to have been guilty of any crime, but we can all apply rudimentary critical faculties to form a conclusion outside a court of law - based on the evidence.

    I'm sure Gerry's current problems regarding his past don't play any role in this whole bunfight, but a dose of honesty about the ample evidence of his membership wouldn't go amiss alongside the rush to 'lack of proof'.

    Saville is dead and as I'm sure you are aware you can't defame the dead, we don't ALL know he was, I don't know he was.
    I saw no evidence to support the claims made in the pulled posts.

    I'm not talking any one case here, I'm talking in general, hundreds of posts have been deleted or people banned over the past years because an opinion on someone was given which couldn't be proven.

    The FACTS are you can't prove Adams was a member yet you allowed to post that here without any actions been taken by mods, the same doesn't go for other people.


  • Options
    #1304
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    Saville is dead and as I'm sure you are aware you can't defame the dead, we don't ALL know he was, I don't know he was..
    Who mentioned defamation? I can't say I buy your pitch on Adams.

    Villain wrote: »
    I'm not talking any one case here, I'm talking in general, hundreds of posts have been deleted or people banned over the past years because an opinion on someone was given which couldn't be proven.

    The FACTS are you can't prove Adams was a member yet you allowed to post that here without any actions been taken by mods, the same doesn't go for other people.
    Proof isn't the issue - proof, in this context, is a legal term. Adams, himself, could come out today and admit his membership of the IRA, and it still wouldn't be proven. The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.


  • Options
    #1305
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.

    The problem is who decides that the evidence is 'ample'?
    In this case the 'ample' evidence isn't 'ample' as there is no conviction.

    It's a subjective assessment all day long.


  • Options
    #1306
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The problem is who decides that the evidence is 'ample'?
    In this case the 'ample' evidence isn't 'ample' as there is no conviction.

    It's a subjective assessment all day long.

    I don't see any problem - people make assessments every day - the legal system - which defines proof, requires juries and judges to make subjective assessments 'all day long'. You weigh up the evidence and form conclusions from the same. There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA.


  • Options
    #1307
    Tramps Like Us
    Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Tramps Like Us


    Why waste time talking to someone whose opinion is irrelevant - I thought this thread was to discuss things with the moderators. When K9 and others have discussed this in their bat cave and reached a position I'd appreciate a response to my post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90078600&postcount=1274


  • Options
    #1308
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I don't see any problem - people make assessments every day - the legal system - which defines proof requires juries and judges to make subjective assessments 'all day long'. You weigh up the evidence and form conclusions from the same. There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA.


    This isn't a courtroom or the legal system.

    There is 'ample' evidence available for most things if you have a bias or prejudice.

    And Tramps is correct, a mod needs to clearly say what is allowed and what isn't.


  • Options
    #1309
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Who mentioned defamation? I can't say I buy your pitch on Adams.



    Proof isn't the issue - proof, in this context, is a legal term. Adams, himself, could come out today and admit his membership of the IRA, and it still wouldn't be proven. The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.

    You are missing the point here, it doesn't matter you believe or what evidence you believe, it is not a fact.

    The discussion here is on the rules and the rules as they are being implemented shows that you can say what you like about some people but not about others.


  • Options
    #1310
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    This isn't a courtroom or the legal system.
    Glad that's finally sinking in.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There is 'ample' evidence available for most things if you have a bias or prejudice.
    Not so. The evidence exists, independent of any bias.


  • Options
    #1311
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    You are missing the point here, it doesn't matter you believe or what evidence you believe, it is not a fact.
    Oh, but it is.
    Villain wrote: »
    The discussion here is on the rules and the rules as they are being implemented shows that you can say what you like about some people but not about others.
    ...based on the evidence presented - as it should be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Tramps Like Us wrote: »
    Why waste time talking to someone whose opinion is irrelevant - I thought this thread was to discuss things with the moderators. When K9 and others have discussed this in their bat cave and reached a position I'd appreciate a response to my post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90078600&postcount=1274

    I had heard of Mansfield, wouldn't have thought he was that widely known as IIRC he was, ironically, well known for being very private and shunned the public eye.

    As for restoring the posts, as I said before I think it was the fair thing to do after getting a reported post and looking at the 7 or so posts that were deleted. Nothing to with defamation lads, as I said, others brought that up and ye all ran with it.

    I don't have a problem with you posting Mansfields denial of rumours that circulated, if you'd posted something like that in the first place, I wouldn't have seen any problem.

    I don't see why I should reinstate the posts, the posts were deleted, I stated why and asked posters to pm me, you didn't and posted on thread instead (usually means a card or ban), I linked to this thread, you posted, I asked for links, you gave them to me, I replied saying that would have been fine, yet here we still are. That's what happened, I've been fair with you. There is nothing stopping you posting the post with links on the thread and carrying on from there. Indeed another poster did provide links shortly after my warning.

    As for double standards about deceased people, I don't think posting something like you did originally, basically rumours is fair, at least provide some sort of link. I just don't see Mansfield as directly comparable to Haughey, we've had Tribunals and numerous books published about him so I'm not seeing how they can be directly linked.

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



  • Options
    #1313
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Glad that's finally sinking in.


    Not so. The evidence exists, independent of any bias.

    'Ample' evidence existed in this case too, but attracted a mod warning.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89964790

    Again...why is your 'ample' evidence (not even tested in a court) enough to allow you to get away without a mod intervention?


  • Options
    #1314
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    'Ample' evidence existed in this case too, but attracted a mod warning.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89964790
    I couldn't comment - there's no evidence, or post for that matter, presented.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again...why is your 'ample' evidence (not even tested in a court) enough to allow you to get away without a mod intervention?
    Didn't you say - "This isn't a courtroom or the legal system."? The evidence is, as presented, sufficient to determine that Adams was in the IRA.


  • Options
    #1315
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I couldn't comment - there's no evidence, or post for that matter, presented.


    Didn't you say - "This isn't a courtroom or the legal system."? The evidence is, as presented, sufficient to determine that Adams was in the IRA.

    No it isn't a court room, so what you are referring to as 'legal evidence' is in FACT 'hearsay', as it cannot be tested or validated, except by your subjective opinion.


  • Options
    #1316
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Nodin wrote: »
    It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise. Yet countless posts are wasted arguing this again and again, often multible times in the same thread. I would suggest that this be put in the charter much like the Dublin regulation.


    Don't suppose anyone looked at this in the Bat cave.....?


  • Options
    #1317
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    K-9 wrote: »
    As for double standards about deceased people, I don't think posting something like you did originally, basically rumours is fair, at least provide some sort of link. I just don't see Mansfield as directly comparable to Haughey, we've had Tribunals and numerous books published about him so I'm not seeing how they can be directly linked.

    Are you going to answer why people are allowed accuse Adams of lying but not others?


  • Options
    #1318
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh, but it is.

    No it isn't and if you can't accept that then there is no point discussing it any further.

    The man has denied it and no-one has proven he was, some say he was but no-one has proven it thus you are calling the man a liar, something which usually results in a ban around here but the mods seem to think otherwise when it comes to Adams!


  • Options
    #1319
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No it isn't a court room, so what you are referring to as 'legal evidence' is in FACT 'hearsay', as it cannot be tested or validated, except by your subjective opinion.
    It was legal evidence in a court presentation. That's the context of that evidence. I don't recall claiming that the forum had any legal aspect.


  • Options
    #1320
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    No it isn't and if you can't accept that then there is no point discussing it any further.

    The man has denied it and no-one has proven he was, some say he was but no-one has proven it thus you are calling the man a liar, something which usually results in a ban around here but the mods seem to think otherwise when it comes to Adams!

    Again legal proof, and the facts of the matter are not one and the same thing. Is it a fact that ample, and varied, evidence demonstrates that Adams was in the IRA? Of course it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    It was legal evidence in a court presentation. That's the context of that evidence. I don't recall claiming that the forum had any legal aspect.

    Why are you using the word 'legal' in front of 'evidence' do you think it gives weight to what you are saying. What does that mean?

    Evidence is presented at any trial, whether the defendant is guilty or not. That doesn't make it a fact. Yet in relation to some people it is allowed to be used as a fact on here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement