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

Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

1…281282284286287…416

Comments

  • #8492
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Here's the quotes again.


    So please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that the theory from your side is not explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    You can't advance an argument and then back away from it pretending you never had anything to do with it.

    I'm not insulting it but I'd certainly question it.
    Here's my quotes you used:
    James Brown wrote: »
    Well he seemingly always delivers.
    I believe he did it to try avoid any loss of support for himself and FG. Why else would he leak a confidential document? He could have told his pal, hold on a day or two it should be released soon. He could have said no.
    James Brown wrote: »
    From the published back and forth it reads to me that Varadkar slipped his pal the document because Zero craic suggested he'd be unpopular with the membership if he didn't.

    I'm consistent and not backing away from anything. I speak for myself. If you can't distinguish between different posters and different views and see anyone critical of what Varadkar did as the same, that's a you problem.


  • #8493
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Here's the quotes again.












    So please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that the theory from your side is not explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    You can't advance an argument and then back away from it pretending you never had anything to do with it.


    Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc, even when it has been completely discredited and disproven time and again.


  • #8494
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc.

    It's called honesty and consistency.


  • #8495
    thomas 123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc, even when it has been completely discredited and disproven time and again.

    Who’s they?


  • #8496
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    James Brown wrote: »
    It's called honesty and consistency.

    So..


    James Brown wrote: »
    McMurphy wrote: »
    A win for Fine Gael..... Wouldn't a certain act apply there if that's the case?


    IMG-20210401-065817.jpg

    That's exactly what Varadkar was at.

    I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    But then, you chastise me for pointing this out
    James Brown wrote: »
    I'm consistent and not backing away from anything. I speak for myself. If you can't distinguish between different posters and different views and see anyone critical of what Varadkar did as the same, that's a you problem.

    Saying that you are standing on a platform
    James Brown wrote: »
    called honesty and consistency.

    But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.


  • Advertisement
  • #8497
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,533 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    So..





    I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    But then, you chastise me for pointing this out



    Saying that you are standing on a platform



    But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.

    Would it be impolite to ask what your position is...because I haven't a clue and I have been following the thread.


  • #8498
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    So..





    I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    But then, you chastise me for pointing this out



    Saying that you are standing on a platform



    But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.

    You are indeed. You keep putting together theories and finding flaw and then putting all those on others.

    Where do I contradict myself there?
    Spoiler, I've not really even read Goodley's letter, (I glanced it in a post). Nor have I used it as a basis for anything I've ever posted on this.

    You are inventing a view on my behalf, then asking me to defend it.
    'Clear ducking and diving'? I suggest you clean your glasses.


  • #8499
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Would it be impolite to ask what your position is...because I haven't a clue and I have been following the thread.

    Fair enough I may have been a little obtuse

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116758648&postcount=8504

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116761251&postcount=8518

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116762427&postcount=8531


  • #8500
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,533 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Fair enough I may have been a little obtuse

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116758648&postcount=8504

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116761251&postcount=8518

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116762427&postcount=8531

    Your clarification is to re-post that which has caused the confusion?


  • #8501
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Your clarification is to re-post that which has caused the confusion?

    The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    (not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

    At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.
    Reply with a one liner along the lines of:
    You just don't understand what I've been saying/ I don't understand what you are saying.
    You are using this to distract.
    We should remember that Leo leaked a document to a pall.
    Get thanked by davycc, FrankieBrady, jmcc, skimydoo


  • Advertisement
  • #8502
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,533 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    (not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

    At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.

    I am discussing the possibility of corruption on foot of the Tanaiste of this country confessing, after being outed, to 'wrongly leaking' a 'confidential' document.
    (words in quotes are what the Tanaiste has said)

    The Gardai will do their own investigation.


  • #8503
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

    (not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

    At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.

    The act is proven beyond doubt. He leaked.
    The whatsapp messaging back and forth built my theory on why he leaked.
    The reasoning may help or hinder his case should he be charged with any criminal act. The reasoning is up for debate. However he leaked and if it breaches any law, why he did it will mean absolutely nothing.

    I believe he did it to gain favour with the NAGP membership. I have been consistent in this. That would be a form of corruption. The act, which he did, is 100% cronyism. Your inability or unwillingness to understand my clearly laid out thoughts on this is not my problem.


  • #8504
    happyoutscan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭happyoutscan


    I find it pathetic how a few here continually attack those who repeat what is actually known to date (ie. Leo leaked).

    The thread title says what the thread is about. Have a problem with that, don't post, it couldn't be any more simple.

    Personally, I think he has a case to answer but I think this will all be swept under the carpet, Irish-style.


  • #8505
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    I find it pathetic how a few here continually attack those who repeat what is actually known to date (ie. Leo leaked).

    The echo defense is only used by people who want to spam the thread with the news headlines from late 2020, but without wanting to discuss anything in depth.

    Running away behind a smokescreen of saying 'he leaked to a pall. Other things do not matter he leaked' makes it patently obvious that people are just saying it to be heard.

    James Brown wrote: »
    I believe he did it to gain favour with the NAGP membership. I have been consistent in this. That would be a form of corruption.


    The argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of NAGP's hostility that he.. didn't accede to any of the union's demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to O'Thuanthail.

    Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

    So it is not very clear why letting NAGP see the draft agreement they had been frozen out of would make them significantly less hostile, when what they demanded (and apparently needed for the survival of the union) was for the government to stop excluding them from negotiations. That the government had the means to stop excluding the NAGP from negotiations if the NAGP's opinion mattered enough to the government, should be clear. It should also be clear that the NAGP maintained their hostile opinion of the government until its end. How Varadkar would personally benefit from any of this is very weakly defended altogether, except to argue that the GP agreement's successful conclusion would make Fine Gael's record in health look a bit stronger, but that in itself isn't any way corrupt.

    I mean you can choose not to engage in this assessment of your argument. Totally your prerogative. But don't pretend that there's any confusion in the matter, because there is not.

    1. Feigned confusion.
    2. Repeating the same message over, and over again.
    3. Pretending that discussion is distraction.
    Does you side of the debate have anything more to offer?

    It is fine if you say that your side of the debate does not have any more to offer, pending new information becoming available, but this lame idea that your side want a discussion, when all they do is the same three things outlined above, is really a bit much.


  • #8506
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The echo defense is only used by people who want to spam the thread with the news headlines from late 2020, but without wanting to discuss anything in depth.

    Running away behind a smokescreen of saying 'he leaked to a pall. Other things do not matter he leaked' makes it patently obvious that people are just saying it to be heard.





    The argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of NAGP's hostility that he.. didn't accede to any of the union's demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to O'Thuanthail.

    Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

    So it is not very clear why letting NAGP see the draft agreement they had been frozen out of would make them significantly less hostile, when what they demanded (and apparently needed for the survival of the union) was for the government to stop excluding them from negotiations. That the government had the means to stop excluding the NAGP from negotiations if the NAGP's opinion mattered enough to the government, should be clear. It should also be clear that the NAGP maintained their hostile opinion of the government until its end. How Varadkar would personally benefit from any of this is very weakly defended altogether, except to argue that the GP agreement's successful conclusion would make Fine Gael's record in health look a bit stronger, but that in itself isn't any way corrupt.

    I mean you can choose not to engage in this assessment of your argument. Totally your prerogative. But don't pretend that there's any confusion in the matter, because there is not.

    1. Feigned confusion.
    2. Repeating the same message over, and over again.
    3. Pretending that discussion is distraction.
    Does you side of the debate have anything more to offer?

    It is fine if you say that your side of the debate does not have any more to offer, pending new information becoming available, but this lame idea that your side want a discussion, when all they do is the same three things outlined above, is really a bit much.


    Have you penned a letter yet to the Gardai indicating your belief that their motives for upgrading the initial preliminary inquiry into an actual criminal one, is a waste of police time, and pointless so?

    I've certainly asked a number of times, but no-one seems to have answered. Why do you think the guards (who are privy to more info than you or I - including the protective disclosure by a whistleblower (s)?) Upgraded the investigation?


  • #8507
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Have you penned a letter yet to the Gardai indicating your belief that their motives for upgrading the initial preliminary inquiry into an actual criminal one, is a waste of police time, and pointless so?

    Well hardly.

    An assessment, based upon currently available information (not even verified as facts at the moment) may indicate that there is no real case, but that doesn't mean that there isn't additional information, which we are not privy to, that would be important in making a determination. An upgrading of the gardai investigation would probably be a prerequisite to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation (I would guess unless it's publicly available, as is the information we are using, or voluntarily surrendered). Parties (not necessarily political) with an ax to grind may be parsimonious with what they are willing to provide, voluntarily.


  • #8508
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,772 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well hardly.

    An assessment, based upon currently available information (not even verified as facts at the moment) may indicate that there is no real case, but that doesn't mean that there isn't additional information, which we are not privy to, that would be important in making a determination. An upgrading of the gardai investigation would probably be a prerequisite to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation (I would guess unless it's publicly available, as is the information we are using, or voluntarily surrendered). Parties (not necessarily political) with an ax to grind may be parsimonious with what they are willing to provide, voluntarily.

    what waffle. Leo leaked confidential documents - end of story. Personally i dont care if he gets done for it or not - it just shows he's an untrustworthy individual not worth anyone's vote.


  • #8509
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    maccored wrote: »
    what waffle. Leo leaked confidential documents - end of story. Personally i dont care if he gets done for it or not - it just shows he's an untrustworthy individual not worth anyone's vote.

    Ah, that echo is still going


  • #8510
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,772 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Ah, that echo is still going

    what, the truth?

    You havent got your fingers in your ears by any chance? you dancing around the fence on this one as you are defending someone you clearly know is guilty


  • #8511
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    maccored wrote: »
    what, the truth?

    You havent got your fingers in your ears by any chance?

    Where have I ever denied this?

    I'm just laying it out here that this white noise is being used for a particular agenda
    maccored wrote: »
    not worth anyone's vote.

    And there it is.

    Let me guess, you have just from a thread concerning your party?


  • Advertisement
  • #8512
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,772 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Where have I ever denied this?

    I'm just laying it out here that this white noise is being used for a particular agenda



    And there it is.

    Let me guess, you have just from a thread concerning your party?

    eh? I have "just from a thread concerning your party"?

    I posted in this thread first. If you think someone who breaks government confidentiality is worth voting for, then you are part of the problem of cronyism and corruption in ireland as anyone who votes for such a lad enables that kind of carryon.


  • #8513
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Have you penned a letter yet to the Gardai indicating your belief that their motives for upgrading the initial preliminary inquiry into an actual criminal one, is a waste of police time, and pointless so?
    I assumed from the posts defending Leo that this must have been where the Gardaí go to help them decide the outcome of the investigation.

    I assumed that they were going to be obliged to cease their scurrilous investigation immediately, just based off the cawings of the legal team here!

    From the very start of this thread there were demands to have it shut down. I feel now all that remains is to see what the outcome is for Leo and it's only fair for observers to weigh up the facts.

    One can also express that they do not accept the facts; such is their right to freedom of expression. However, following that comes right of others to lay out the events and draw conclusions about them.

    Leo read and recycled the document
    Leo's acquaintance MoT asked for a copy
    Mot was one of the heads of an unofficial GP union who had it in for FG
    Leo requested another copy, expressing in the correspondence that it was for his own interest
    Leo had the copy waiting for him as he disembarked the government jet
    He had it sent, most likely couriered or taxied, to his compatriot
    The Gardaí are investigating whether or not the events amount to criminal corruption.

    That's what happened. Not exactly a "nothing to see here" situation as some here are emphatically and regularly insisting with the desperation of people who experiencing crushing disappointment. If it's such a non issue, it surely doesn't merit constant daily engagement. :D


  • #8514
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    maccored wrote: »
    If you think someone who breaks government confidentiality is worth voting for, then you are part of the problem of cronyism and corruption in ireland as anyone who votes for such a lad enables that kind of carryon.

    It's a little bit early for electioneering. I know you'd always have on eye on the polls but I was talking about the subject matter in good faith.

    The echo rebuttal is just used as a lazy mechanism to stop talking about the subject matter, but actually drown it out with twitter hashtag level of political engagement. We both know why you're doing it.

    Not that it's relevant but last election I voted PBP/Independent/FF in that order and in the euros before that I voted Independent/I4C

    But no, in all honesty this case, as presently presented, wouldn't change my opinion of Fine Gael at all. It feels like it has been artificially inflated for the sake of political expediency, a position I feel is corroborated by its proponents being reluctant to actually discuss the salient points, but reverting to the usual feigned confusion (asking things that are clearly obvious, and that they have asked before), doing the echo rebuttal, and pretending that any coherent debate is distracting.


  • #8515
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well hardly.

    An assessment, based upon currently available information (not even verified as facts at the moment) may indicate that there is no real case, but that doesn't mean that there isn't additional information, which we are not privy to, that would be important in making a determination. An upgrading of the gardai investigation would probably be a prerequisite to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation (I would guess unless it's publicly available, as is the information we are using, or voluntarily surrendered). Parties (not necessarily political) with an ax to grind may be parsimonious with what they are willing to provide, voluntarily.

    Read this and then I reread it again just to try and clarify it for myself, but I'm none the wiser as to what it is you actually think made the Gardai formally upgrade a preliminary inquiry into a full criminal one?

    The part in bold, isn't that just a regurgitation of what I posted, and you replied to, yet bizarrely selectively edited out of my post you replied to :confused:
    I've certainly asked a number of times, but no-one seems to have answered. Why do you think the guards (who are privy to more info than you or I - including the protective disclosure by a whistleblower (s)?) Upgraded the investigation?


  • #8516
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Read this and then I reread it again just to try and clarify it for myself, but I'm none the wiser as to what it is you actually think made the Gardai formally upgrade a preliminary inquiry into a full criminal one?

    As I said I would imagine it would be done to facilitate the capacity to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation. If there are relevant factors that are unknowns this may be necessary. But I'm no expert in the matter and have very little to go on to make any conclusions relating to it, even if I were.


  • #8517
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    As I said I would imagine it would be done to facilitate the capacity to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation. If there are relevant factors that are unknowns this may be necessary. But I'm no expert in the matter and have very little to go on to make any conclusions relating to it, even if I were.

    So let's deal in the facts then.

    Leo's admitted and apologised for leaking the file.

    A complaint was made to Gardai which resulted in the preliminary investigation being initiated.

    Simon Harris has been interviewed by AGS.
    A senior civil servant from Health (of which Simon Harris was once the minister responsible for) has made a protective disclosure about what went on.

    Gardai upgraded the preliminary investigation to a criminal investigation.

    That would indicate to me that regardless of what some are trying to spout in here, Leo was never at liberty to just authorise himself to send these files, the file itself was confidential, and as it stands, Leo could be in a lot of deep shìt.


  • #8518
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    McMurphy wrote: »

    That would indicate to me that regardless of what some are trying to spout in here, Leo was never at liberty to just authorise himself to send these files, the file itself was confidential, and as it stands, Leo could be in a lot of deep shìt.
    If you were right, I'd say he'd be charged, tried and convicted
    Charged at a minimum anyway
    You are just repeating (again) what you and other proponents of that have said, nothing new
    I think you are wrong and what you're saying is cloud cuckoo land
    We'll see who is right, I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong, will you?
    This will be my last post on this matter until its concluded, it's gone into such a self cannibalising tit for tat at this stage


  • #8519
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The echo defense is only used by people who want to spam the thread with the news headlines from late 2020, but without wanting to discuss anything in depth.

    Running away behind a smokescreen of saying 'he leaked to a pall. Other things do not matter he leaked' makes it patently obvious that people are just saying it to be heard.





    The argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of NAGP's hostility that he.. didn't accede to any of the union's demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to O'Thuanthail.

    Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

    So it is not very clear why letting NAGP see the draft agreement they had been frozen out of would make them significantly less hostile, when what they demanded (and apparently needed for the survival of the union) was for the government to stop excluding them from negotiations. That the government had the means to stop excluding the NAGP from negotiations if the NAGP's opinion mattered enough to the government, should be clear. It should also be clear that the NAGP maintained their hostile opinion of the government until its end. How Varadkar would personally benefit from any of this is very weakly defended altogether, except to argue that the GP agreement's successful conclusion would make Fine Gael's record in health look a bit stronger, but that in itself isn't any way corrupt.

    I mean you can choose not to engage in this assessment of your argument. Totally your prerogative. But don't pretend that there's any confusion in the matter, because there is not.

    1. Feigned confusion.
    2. Repeating the same message over, and over again.
    3. Pretending that discussion is distraction.
    Does you side of the debate have anything more to offer?

    It is fine if you say that your side of the debate does not have any more to offer, pending new information becoming available, but this lame idea that your side want a discussion, when all they do is the same three things outlined above, is really a bit much.

    You are talking to the mob. Coherent, logical arguments are not the strongpoint of mobs.

    Simplified inaccurate slogans are the modus operandi.


  • #8520
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Simplified inaccurate slogans

    as far as it goes #leotheleak is accurate. It just doesn't constitute discussion.

    I am perfectly happy if not wanting to discuss this was based upon a lack of new information, but their insistence is instead to post fake questions (including having their own positions carefully explained to them) or veer off into either stating the obvious and red herrings. Worse still is their faux moral outrage that discussing the topic constitutes a distraction. So I think it is worthwhile calling out the demonstrable lack of good faith in their position.


  • Advertisement
  • #8521
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    as far as it goes #leotheleak is accurate. It just doesn't constitute discussion.

    I am perfectly happy if not wanting to discuss this was based upon a lack of new information, but their insistence is instead to post fake questions (including having their own positions carefully explained to them) or veer off into either stating the obvious and red herrings. Worse still is their faux moral outrage that discussing the topic constitutes a distraction. So I think it is worthwhile calling out the demonstrable lack of good faith in their position.

    It's only a leak if it's illegal. Sharing isn't leaking.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement