Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

AllForIt wrote: »

I think the Mod is being deliberately thick here, a characteristic of intellectual non intellectual types I've noticed.

I never said this particular thread was a result of Lefty moderation, I'm saying it's totally non-intellectual in the first place. I never accused any Mod for starting it, but Mods encouraged it, or at least let it go for fun.

The mod says I have an opportunity to go to the feedback forum. sure, but the Mod completely ignored the primary point I made, yeah, no comment on it whatsoever, just some pathetic bolded text.

I trust my instinct's about people, what kind of people they are, combined with their views and how they behave, even on a text based interacton.

CramCycle wrote: »

That was a really annoying questionnaire as the options were too restrictive, some things I was neutral on and the inability to pick neutral (or I don't care) meant I knew the quiz would skew me way further left wing than I am. I get the impression that such a quiz will make people seem more left or right wing than they actually are. Also I suspect it sways me more to Libertarianism than I am as well, the questions were clearly asked to divide than to get an answer, with many needing a neutral answer to specify you were neither for or against as both positions had equally valid values.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Mr Waters acted in court as a McKenzie friend to Mr Heasman, who was subsequently jailed for two months.

With friends like that....

Court of Appeal wrote:

while the requirement to establish an arguable case is a low threshold, it is not a non-existent threshold. [...] ; it is, in one sense, arguable that the earth is flat, but it seems to me that to meet the arguability threshold [...] the argument must, as a minimum, be based on reason and common sense, and not such that it can be fairly and noncontroversially be categorised as absurd and nonsensical.

It must be said that their submissions, both written and oral, are quite tendentious. [...] To put it at its mildest, there is a tendency on the part of the applicants to present, as unchallenged fact, what is keenly in dispute. One is reminded of comments in another context of the existence of “alternate facts”.

I should say, in clear and unequivocal terms, that I regard these proceedings as misconceived and as being entirely without merit. The arguments advanced might have a certain appeal if addressed to a flag-waving assembly outside the Customs House, but have no purchase when addressed to a Court of Law.

I do not exclude the possibility that it might be possible to formulate a serious challenge to one or other of the measures taken on some constitutional grounds, but what I am absolutely clear about is that the applicants have not done that. Both in this court and in the High Court, the applicants have made assertions in trenchant terms. I do not doubt that the views expressed are sincerely held, implausible, and indeed, eccentric, as many of them might appear to be, but the fact that individual citizens disagree with government policy and legislation enacted by the Oireachtas, does not provide a basis for a constitutional challenge. Bald assertions do not morph into anything more than that merely because the assertions are couched in strong, or indeed, extravagant language.

I am quite satisfied that the attempts to persuade a court to interfere with the internal procedures of the Oireachtas, as the applicants seek to do, must fail.

It must be noted that the reasonable bystander from whose perspective the matter is judged, is just that; a reasonable bystander, not a devotee of conspiracy theories. I cannot believe that any reasonable bystander would be concerned. [...] So far as the applicants now seek to draw support for their concerns from the judge’s conduct and demeanour during the trial, such criticisms formed no part of the appeal and do not impress. Indeed, I am bound to say that the raising of this issue at this stage and in this manner smacks of desperation.

[...] these proceedings have singularly failed to raise issues of substance. The applicants have chosen rhetoric over
substance and fiction and distortion over fact. In my view, they have singularly failed to meet the threshold of establishing an arguable case. I am quite satisfied that the approach in the High Court was the correct one and that this is an appeal that should be dismissed.