nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Beasty

Following on from this thread

Threadbans carry over

Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FreudianSlippers

McMurphy wrote: »

I'll ask again, where did Doherty say that

It cracks me up that these lads are all about inferring context when it suits them but when it doesn't they're jumping up and down to be like "show me exactly where he said every specific word"

Here's what Doherty said:

He needs to explain how he was able to get his hands on a document, and provide it to his friend, that was so confidential that the minister for health was being denied a copy by his own officials

So, what'd Doherty say?

1. Varadkar was able to get his hands on a confidential document;
2. That document was "so confidential that the minister for health was being denied a copy"
3. LV provided that confidential document to "his friend"

Does that help you understand the article and who said what?

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

because the government worked to.coverup school outbreaks..

Not really true but anyway....

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So that is what you're saying then?

He retweeted the Irish Times headline, written by the Irish Times...i.e. he did not say it himself.

You are not great on clarity FS are you?

markodaly

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It cracks me up that these lads are all about inferring context when it suits them but when it doesn't they're jumping up and down to be like "show me exactly where he said every specific word"

This x1000

We all know who they are and why they do it as well.

mikep

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He retweeted the Irish Times headline, written by the Irish Times...i.e. he did not say it himself.

You are not great on clarity FS are you?

Did Pearse leak the story about the leak as the article states that it is info from an FOI sent to Pearse that was "seen" by the IT....

FrancieBrady

mikep wrote: »

Did Pearse leak the story about the leak as the article states that it is info from an FOI sent to Pearse that was "seen" by the IT....

'Leak'

Yes Pearse requested info under FOI.

mikep

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Leak'

Yes Pearse requested info under FOI.

How did the IT get their hands on it??

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He retweeted the Irish Times headline, written by the Irish Times...i.e. he did not say it himself.

You are not great on clarity FS are you?

Sorry so you genuinely think that the concept of "retweets aren't endorsements" is real? Like if someone RTs something defamatory they can get away with it by just saying "hey I just retweeted what the Irish Times wrote"?

Is that your learned position on the matter? lol

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry so you genuinely think that the concept of "retweets aren't endorsements" is real? Like if someone RTs something defamatory they can get away with it by just saying "hey I just retweeted what the Irish Times wrote"?

Is that your learned position on the matter? lol

Of course he endorses it, he is following up by asking the questions about it. Which believe it or not is his job as an opposition TD.

FreudianSlippers

mikep wrote: »

How did the IT get their hands on it??

Hard to say one way or the other, but I wouldn't put it past being sloppy reporting and it was actually obtained via the FOI Publication Scheme and not a direct FOI. If it was a direct FOI (which seems to be the case from the article) then it was sent to them by someone party to the FOI request.

I don't think we can necessarily chock it up entirely to Doherty or his team though in fairness.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course he endorses it, he is following up by asking the questions about it. Which believe it or not is his job as an opposition TD.

It's well established that the concept of retweeting something is as if you're saying it yourself. So I'm not sure you are making a coherent point here. Maybe try to set out what you're saying in a clear manner?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He retweeted the Irish Times headline, written by the Irish Times...i.e. he did not say it himself.

You are not great on clarity FS are you?

That is a lie.

He retweeted the article, that is true, but more than retweeting it, he repeated the headline in his tweet, not just a simple retweet without comment, thereby saying it himself so he did say it himself as I claimed. As I said earlier to another poster, read the tweets and the retweets.

Of course, the alternative is that Pearse doesn't how to use Twitter properly and thinks he has to repeat the headline in his own tweet in order to retweet it. It isn't a zero possiblity that Pearse is that stupid, but he might want to follow Stanley off of Twitter.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's well established that the concept of retweeting something is as if you're saying it yourself. So I'm not sure you are making a coherent point here. Maybe try to set out what you're saying in a clear manner?

Well established by whom?

It is a moveable feast...you are passing on a news article, something absurd, r something you endorse.

I have done all three.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well established by whom?

It is a moveable feast...you are passing on a news article, something absurd, r something you endorse.

I have done all three.

He didn't just retweet it. He repeated the headline in his own tweet, thereby saying it himself.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a lie.

He retweeted the article, that is true, but more than retweeting it, he repeated the headline in his tweet, not just a simple retweet without comment, thereby saying it himself so he did say it himself as I claimed. As I said earlier to another poster, read the tweets and the retweets.

Of course, the alternative is that Pearse doesn't how to use Twitter properly and thinks he has to repeat the headline in his own tweet in order to retweet it. It isn't a zero possiblity that Pearse is that stupid, but he might want to follow Stanley off of Twitter.

He actually makes it clear it is 'VIA' the Irish Times. Give it up blanch...ridiculous foot stamping here to avoid the substantive issues.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He actually makes it clear it is 'VIA' the Irish Times. Give it up blanch...ridiculous foot stamping here to avoid the substantive issues.

It has already been established this morning by a friend of yours that putting quotation marks means you are quoting somebody saying something.

McMurphy wrote: »

You put quotation marks up against remarks from the article you wrongly ascribed to Doherty blanch.

Just admit it.

Or, if not from the article - link me to Doherty Saying what you quoted him saying.

You're a gas man.

Doherty didn't put up the quotation marks, hence he said it himself!!!!!!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It has already been established this morning by a friend of yours that putting quotation marks means you are quoting somebody saying something.

Doherty didn't put up the quotation marks, hence he said it himself!!!!!!

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He actually makes it clear it is 'VIA' the Irish Times. Give it up blanch...ridiculous foot stamping here to avoid the substantive issues.

Is there a problem with the article Francie or is it just the usual suspects deflecting? Pat Leahy IT tweeting and retweeting the same piece now.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well established by whom?

It is a moveable feast...you are passing on a news article, something absurd, r something you endorse.

I have done all three.

McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) seems to have set the groundwork but was settled eventually.

La Liberte v. Reid in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York would have also been very interesting in making a determination in a US context but was also settled.

Both cases give clear indication through their settlement that, at best, defendants are not satisfied that retweets aren't deemed to be from the "mouth" of the individual doing the retweeting.

In 2017, a Swiss court ruled that by liking a statement on Facebook, the user had adopted those statements as their own and disseminated them further making them accessible to a multitude of people.

There is of course, the "mere conduit" theory which websites like boards.ie rely heavily on due to "post-moderation" of the site (i.e. they only become liable once they are reasonably notified of the statement), however on the other hand sites like (I believe) the journal that approve comments before they appear on the site engage in "pre-moderation" and cannot rely on same. It's fairly clear that by clicking RT or potentially even like that one has made an active decision to share that content through their own account.

If you'd like to learn more, I can suggest some articles on the matter.

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

Is there a problem with the article Francie or is it just the usual suspects deflecting? Pat Leahy IT tweeting and retweeting the same piece now.

Deflection central in operation this AM Fann Linn...usual stuff.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

It has already been established this morning by a friend of yours that putting quotation marks means you are quoting somebody saying something.

Doherty didn't put up the quotation marks, hence he said it himself!!!!!!

So when I retweet a newspaper article that is about one of Leo's/ *enter anyone's name here* many brain farts to highlight the stupidity of same, I'm directly saying it myself, and or endorsing it

Who knew

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) seems to have set the groundwork but was settled eventually.

La Liberte v. Reid in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York would have also been very interesting in making a determination in a US context but was also settled.

Both cases give clear indication through their settlement that, at best, defendants are not satisfied that retweets aren't deemed to be from the "mouth" of the individual doing the retweeting.

In 2017, a Swiss court ruled that by liking a statement on Facebook, the user had adopted those statements as their own and disseminated them further making them accessible to a multitude of people.

There is of course, the "mere conduit" theory which websites like boards.ie rely heavily on due to "post-moderation" of the site (i.e. they only become liable once they are reasonably notified of the statement), however on the other hand sites like (I believe) the journal that approve comments before they appear on the site engage in "pre-moderation" and cannot rely on same. It's fairly clear that by clicking RT or potentially even like that one has made an active decision to share that content through their own account.

If you'd like to learn more, I can suggest some articles on the matter.

Two seconds on Google will 'larn ye' that there are as many schools of thought on the subject as there are deflections on this thread.

FreudianSlippers

McMurphy wrote: »

So when I retweet a newspaper article that is about one of Leo's/ *enter anyone's name here* many brain farts to highlight the stupidity of same, I'm directly saying it myself, and or endorsing it

Who knew

Yes, particularly if it's defamatory. Same as if you shared it here.

IAMAMORON

McMurphy wrote: »

So when I retweet a newspaper article that is about one of Leo's/ *enter anyone's name here* many brain farts to highlight the stupidity of same, I'm directly saying it myself, and or endorsing it

Almost.

You are endorsing the ramifications of the ramblings of a journalist. Paper never refused ink - by retweeting potentially slanderous articles written by sub-standard journalists looking to get clicks or sell advertising you have the potential to draw untoward attention onto your own deliberate intentions.

It is a bit like that nobody whistleblower that started publishing his private conversations with Matthew Thuathill before Christmas - I still cannot remember his name. Whilst he was in the media trying to hang the Tánaiste for 3 weeks he has since been forgotten about and now has to spend the rest of his existence getting his back slapped by a gang of lefties who don't really give a phuck about him. It is a very sad departure for a man who at one stage had notions aboout being some sort of a lucrative human resources consultant within the Health Service.

You lie down with dogs....

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Two seconds on Google will 'larn ye' that there are as many schools of thought on the subject as there are deflections on this thread.

Francie, I don't need to google it... I've been practising in the media law field for something like 13 years. Remind me of your credentials?

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Francie, I don't need to google it... I've been practising in the media law field for something like 13 years.

So you'll know there are many schools of thought on it.

Doherty would have no problems endorsing it and has asked questions about it and will no doubt follow up in the Dáil...which is his fecking job after all.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you'll know there are many schools of thought on it.

This is a flat out lie, congratulations.

Doherty would have no problems endorsing it and has asked questions about it and will no doubt follow up in the Dáil...which is his fecking job after all.

Are you speaking officially on behalf of Doherty here or as Doherty?

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a flat out lie, congratulations.

it's not.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01BRKzJM-ldpYGFwlSEoCrfc5kb_A%3A1611147190460&ei=ticIYIPaG8uW1fAPzva_8A4&q=Is+retweeting+a+newspaper+article+an+endorsement&oq=Is+retweeting+a+newspaper+article+an+endorsement&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECCMQJzoOCAAQsQMQgwEQyQMQkQI6BQgAEJECOggIABCxAxCDAToOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQowI6CAgAEMkDEJECOgQIABBDOgUIABCxAzoICC4QxwEQrwE6AggAOgUIABDJAzoCCC46CAgAELEDEMkDOgoIABDJAxAUEIcCOgcIABAUEIcCOgQIABAKOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKABOgQIIRAVOgcIIRAKEKABUOMdWIOSAWD4lQFoAHABeACAAawBiAHFH5IBBDQzLjWYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiDjd__xqruAhVLSxUIHU77D-4Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Are you speaking officially on behalf of Doherty here or as Doherty?

No, speaking as somebody with common sense.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, particularly if it's defamatory. Same as if you shared it here.

Just to clarify here - if I (or you or anyone else) retweet an article, particularly to highlight the absurdity of it are endorsing it ?

Shall I dig around for quotes on this site where we all have apparently endorsed the tweet we have posted?

Can. Of. Worms.

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Hardly fair.
My niece is a secondary teacher with two kids at primary school and one in preschool year.
She has to supervise her own kids at home schooling while teaching her students too.
Her youngest preschool has been cancelled and she has to pay a babysitter for him.
Lots of problems for teachers, they don't all sit on their arses on the couch if school is off.
But schools obviously aren't safe environments or NPHET wouldn't reccomend closing them now would they?

We’re talking about special needs children. They are a special case. Lots of problems for shop workers too, but they find solutions.