A discussion on the rules.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that only one type of poster is posting 'nonsense'?

Fair enough, you don't want to improve the standard of the forum if it removes your right to be trite and insulting. With absolutely no benefit to the debate it has to be added. So what if you are debating with a bot from any party, how does that diminish the strength of your argument?

The vast majority of non-evidenced or unsupported posts are coming from the shinnerbots.

RecordStraight

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The vast majority of non-evidenced or unsupported posts are coming from the shinnerbots.

Or you get asked for evidence for your own opinions, as Happyman did to me a few minutes ago.

Nodin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The vast majority of non-evidenced or unsupported posts are coming from the shinnerbots.

Course. It's all the other lot.

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

Or you get asked for evidence for your own opinions, as Happyman did to me a few minutes ago.

I asked you for a source, which you hadn't got.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked you for a source, which you hadn't got.

A source, for my opinions.

Brilliant. In Soviet Russia, all opinions must have documentary proof. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

A source, for my opinions.

Brilliant. In Soviet Russia, all opinions must have documentary proof. :rolleyes:

You where asked what sources you where basing your 'opinion' on and it turned out not to be a Garda source but your freely admitted bias.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where asked what sources you where basing your 'opinion' on and it turned out not to be a Garda source but your freely admitted bias.

My opinion was that we shouldn't trust that Adams handed over all of his organisation's child-rape information just because he says he has.

How would you go about 'sourcing' that view?

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

My opinion was that we shouldn't trust that Adams handed over all of his organisation's child-rape information just because he says he has.

How would you go about 'sourcing' that view?

You where asked what your source for saying that was and you admitted it was your 'bias'.

That is fine.
I just wanted to clarify on thread that it was a 'bias' and not based on any facts you had from Gardai.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where asked what your source for saying that was and you admitted it was your 'bias'.

You can link to where I said that, right?

Or you can admit to lying. Take your pick.

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

You can link to where I said that, right?

Or you can admit to lying. Take your pick.

My 'bias' is based on the fact that:

www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94745058&postcount=3474

You said it, nothing to do with info you had from Gardai or anything they said publicly or officially.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94745058&postcount=3474

You said it, nothing to do with info you had from Gardai or anything they said publicly or officially.

So you are playing the 'stupid' card, pretending you don't know what it means when a word is in inverted commas?

Well I suppose it's a nice example of what it is like trying to have a discussion with someone who is completely disingenuous.

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

So you are playing the 'stupid' card, pretending you don't know what it means when a word is in inverted commas?

Well I suppose it's a nice example of what it is like trying to have a discussion with someone who is completely disingenuous.

Inverted commas to place emphasis on what you are saying. I have a 'bias'.
Why else would you use 'them'?

You where asked for a garda source and you hadn't got one. I thought you would have to have one to make a statement like the one you made, whether you where forming an opinion or not. Just keeping you honest.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

Inverted commas to place emphasis on what you are saying. I have a 'bias'.
Why else would you use 'them'?

Is everybody else seeing that, or is it just me?

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

Is everybody else seeing that, or is it just me?

You didn't post your 3 points until later, you posted this

RecordStraight wrote:

So we are expected to believe that Adams has brought to the Gardaí all the information on all of the (dozens?) of cases?

You where asked for a Garda statement or source to back up this opinion and you didn't have one.

LeeMajors

Isn't this thread called 'a discussion on the rules' and not 'a discussion of the thread'?

LeeMajors

Godge wrote: »

"Terms" in use elsewhere that are banned here tend to be foul language or generally applicable insulting remarks.

The three terms I listed all have an appropriate context for use and also inappropriate contexts for use.

So while it is never appropriate to call another poster or a class of people a "scumbag" or "scumbags", referring to "SF/IRA" when discussing Gerry Adams' alleged membership of the IRA is appropriate. Very very different.

Grand, so from now on I'd suggest we use the terms 'SF/PIRA', 'FF/IRA' and 'FG/BLUESHIRTS'

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

[...]you posted this

Originally Posted by RecordStraight
So we are expected to believe that Adams has brought to the Gardaí all the information on all of the (dozens?) of cases?

You where asked for a Garda statement or source to back up this opinion and you didn't have one.

Ok, so now you want 'sources' for questions? You couldn't make this stuff up.

LeeMajors

This place is like a drug for some....

Happyman42

LeeMajors wrote: »

Isn't this thread called 'a discussion on the rules' and not 'a discussion of the thread'?

It is but as Nodin said earlier, if somebody makes a comment with no basis in fact, (like Record Straight made a few posts back) then it isn't going to go by unchallenged.

RecordStraight

LeeMajors wrote: »

This place is like a drug for some....

For someone who complains all the time about threads, you spend an awful lot of time posting on them.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is but as Nodin said earlier, if somebody makes a comment with no basis in fact, (like Record Straight made a few posts back) then it isn't going to go by unchallenged.

I think you will find you are confusing questions and comments again.

One is not usually asked for sources for questions.

LeeMajors

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is but as Nodin said earlier, if somebody makes a comment with no basis in fact, (like Record Straight made a few posts back) then it isn't going to go by unchallenged.

I've stopped bothering with posters like that.
Pointless, best put on ignore tbh because they add nothing to the discussion only bile.
It's funny for a while but then it just gets boring.

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

Ok, so now you want 'sources' for questions? You couldn't make this stuff up.

You didn't have a source in the Gardai for your opinion. End of.
All the other stuff of your 'bias' is your opinion too and like the Garda one you are entitled to it.
I am also entitled to question whether you have a source for it or not, otherwise I could post anything as fact, because it is my 'opinion'.
Don't get huffy because you are asked for sources, happens here everyday of the week. And it is within the rules.
And I am not breaking the rules of this thread by responding to you anymore.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

You didn't have a source in the Gardai for your opinion. End of.

I was asking a question. You do not need to give sources for a question. Let me give an example:

Person 1: What is the capital of Egypt, Person 2?

Person 2: Hey - what's your source for that?

See - it doesn't really work.

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

I was asking a question. You do not need to give sources for a question. Let me give an example:


See - it doesn't really work.

Final word, because the above is as usual a blatant attempt to mis-represent.

Q. I have heard that Egypt has no capital.

A. What is your source for that.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

Q. I have heard that Egypt has no capital.

A. What is your source for that.

That's not a question. That's a statement. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

RecordStraight wrote: »

That's not a question. That's a statement. :rolleyes:

Q. I have heard that Egypt has no capital?

A. What is your source for that.

:rolleyes:

Godge

RecordStraight wrote: »

My opinion was that we shouldn't trust that Adams handed over all of his organisation's child-rape information just because he says he has.

How would you go about 'sourcing' that view?

You would refer to the previous documented inconsistency (lies in my opinion) between his media interview on Spotlight about Aine Adams and his testimony in the Liam Adams case. On one of the two occasions he was at the very least economical with the truth. Therefore in assessing his bona fides on a similar issue of child sexual abuse, you are taking into account his previous.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

Q. I have heard that Egypt has no capital?

A. What is your source for that.

:rolleyes:

:facepalm:

Godge

As usual this thread has drifted off-topic. However, I do have a question for the mods.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94747032&postcount=3532

"Anyway, onto the ignore list with ya, it's best all round"

A number of posters have recently taking to posting like this i.e. explicitly posting that they are putting another poster on an ignore list. Is there a line where this crosses from normal posting into baiting or flaming. For example, I am fairly certain that posters that have claimed to put me on an ignore list are quoting my posts several hours or days later.