EmmetSpiceland wrote: » And what of the ubiquitous “shinnerbots”, M? Will you be looking to purge them from the system too? As for trolling, your username is trolling, and a rather creepy one at that, and you repeatedly call the electorate “idiots”, or at least you imply that they are, because they don’t see things as narrow-mindedly, or as simplistically, as you, yourself, do. As for getting a, somewhat, “popular” thread shutdown, something I, myself, was accused of having a hand in, you, and your group, were posting round the clock to keep the thread on the first page of the forum. When the story dried up you then posted links to any old insurance story and even resorted to moaning about car insurance renewals. People aren’t always going to agree with you, M, even if you think you’re right. I don’t know if you indulge in smoking of those marijuana “cigarettes” but, if you do, I would suggest you lay off them for awhile. This thread smacks of paranoid delusions and “jumping” at shadows. Also, I should add, people aren’t always going to like you but when you’re starting out using the “username” you have you’re already starting inciting others against you. But you already know that.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » If anyone thinks FG have people working in the current affairs well they would want to get their money back as It’s not working.
osarusan wrote: » I don't see much difference between those stridently defending them and those stridently attacking them.
Raconteuse wrote: » It used to be believed that there were Sinn Fein bots/shills too. I don't get it - why must "They're supportive of a party I personally could never support" automatically = "bot"?
Raconteuse wrote: » That was just someone messing. See Prison.
Deleted User wrote: » wouldnt like to speculate as to whether im one of our boy's bots, but if i may quote my own goodself (which absolutely ought be a yellow card, admittedly) on what would appear to be a relevant train of thought:https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058035734/29/#post111934493 OP thinks that anyone who takes issue with constant govt-bashing is therefore a govt bot, i think. id suggest this shows a fairly limited perspective. as pointed out, the govt is actually representative of yknow quite a few ppl. and furthermore, quite a few others do react to the same logins posting, dare i say it, what could just as easily be portrayed as party political statements and coordinated attacks on any and every action of govt. if one behaviour is evidence of bots........then surely so is the other? anyway, thread is ... amusing, if its not out of line to say so.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Bots? I thought shinnerbots is a term banned in boards yet the OP is allowed start a thread titled FG bots? If anyone thinks FG have people working in the current affairs well they would want to get their money back as It’s not working. All it is is about 10 people rounding up on anyone who dares put an argument forward for FG.
blanch152 wrote: » His username is more than a little creepy. In my opinion, it is borderline homophobic. Why would a poster adopt the username of the Taoiseach's partner and then spend their time with every second post having a go at "Leo" or "Eoghan" other than to be drawing attention to the Taoiseach's sexuality? And for what reason?
Matt Barrett wrote: » If people only come in to attack and cite the FG party line, I'd be suspicious. If certain folk never offer an opinion but attack and divert off topic while citing FG party line, I'd be more suspicious.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » 6 posts in a row isn’t a good look.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I wouldn't rate a personal attack as an opinion myself Blanch. See this would be trolling, personal attack, diverting off topic and offering no opinion on topic, to me. Not saying you fit the op perfectly by any means. Go Greens! FYI: 2 months and 3 weeks since I used 'Eoghan'
Deleted User wrote: » its been pointed out throughout that you- and many more like ya- are exactly the same or worse in your one-eyedness of analysis and one-notedness of message. if one group is allowed to hold beliefs and have their own set of triggers, irritants or crank issues, then so are the other. behoves no individual amongst either group, and look i think its fair comment to note that many would peg your goodself as such, to demand that mods declare that one behaviour is a conspiracy (remember: majority party of government, not some noise-above-impact rowdy set) and one behaviour is matt and the biyiz just having a completely normal one. it wont wash.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Yeah, if that were the OP, but it's not. Folk who attack and generally have no alternative opinion and often preempt the official FG party line the day before the media report it, that's the issue. There are many FG supporters who will debate with you.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's about discussion and trying to close down discussion often with personal attack. Varied opinions are welcomed by me.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I challenge you to find one opinion ever from contestant number one. Seriously one opinion ever on any politics or current affairs thread. The final late entrant is a troll of the highest order. Anyway, thanks again.
PeadarCo wrote: » If varied opinions are welcomed why the thread? As others have mentioned if FG are employing people they are doing a terrible job given the number of threads criticising them on both CA and politics. That's to a large degree that's expected given they are the party in government and have held that position for a long time. Calling people who support/defend FG policies bots is asking for an echo chamber. Remember they even now based on opinion polls attract a substantial amount of support. You would expect a considerable amount of poster's posting in their defence as a result. As I mentioned in a previous post one of the achievements of the mods in politics that they have created an environment where pro brexit posters can still post. It would be very easy for pro brexit posters to be hounded out of the threads. What you seem to be calling for is FG supporters to be banned from the various threads. I would be fairly confident that any genuine bots of any party/belief would be picked up by mods and actioned.
Chips Lovell wrote: » At the risk of repeating myself, I see no evidence whatsoever that any of those three people are FG bots. If you don't agree with me, MR. E has also offered to review the list. As an Admin, he can overrule any assessment I make as a Politics mod and can also look at posters site wide.
Mortelaro wrote: » Back in the day in a previous life,when I used mod politics, the OP would have had a heart attack as they were very popular despite Enda Bonkey used to say when you're getting it in the neck from all sides nodding you're probably getting the balance right Post in a public forum and you will get opposing opinions That's what discussion is Some people are more thick skinned than others and will post their opinions regardless of what comes back That's fine If any poster is losing sleep at night over all this,they need a break from boards,Twitter, journal etc *Disclaimer I'm FG friendly myself and make no apologies I do think they're a bit amateurish at times though
blanch152 wrote: » I happen to see it a bit differently. Say, a poster happens along and starts a thread saying that Fine Gael are wasting €1 billion a year on TD's pay and expenses and it's a disgrace. I might come along and say, well actually, it's more like €20-25m for TD's pay and post a link to back up my statement. OP counters that I am only attacking him and not offering an opinion and what's my opinion on the crazy waste of money on TD's pay. [Note: these are not real figures, just for illustrative purposes] Now, I am under no obligation to offer an opinion on the OP's crazy conspiracy theory other than to point out the absurd factual basis of the OP. I might well share the OP's opinion, or I might not, but in my view, if people are going around posting unsubstantiated facts such as €1bn is wasted on TD's pay or "Nobody has owned a free/subsidised house ever in the history of the state", then I do feel, that for the debate to at least be based on facts, the record needs to be corrected. It is not possible for the mods to clamp down on every factual misstatement, and there are many, but there is nothing wrong with other posters pointing out where a poster has got their facts completely wrong, especially when those other posters provide links to back up their statements. That doesn't require them to subsequently post an opinion on the subject, all they are doing is correcting the record.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You didn't read or understand the OP obviously.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Read the OP.
Deleted User wrote: » mods, release the list!!!
Matt Barrett wrote: » Have you ever started a comment with an opinion of your own, ever? Aside from refuting any negative FG news items, you add nothing. Even then you post false dishonest tripe. I caught you out on the 'Eoghan' claim of your last comment to me. Now it's like you never made that lie. You posted in the Maria Bailey threads yet never gave an opinion on it. In this 24 hour old thread you've inferred I'm homophobic and sexist. So cut the baloney. Maybe you have Russian Pee tapes on some high up folk but you get away with murder on a daily basis none the less. Nobody buys the happy go luck social commentator with a Green Party vent. We may disagree, (I don't know your opinion on anything TBF) but I'm honest.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
