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

Interesting posters appearing around UL

auldpooky

Saw some of these up near the red raisins today and thought they were hilarious

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Maybe i'm being harsh on the lads like reunion or ginge_young who ask their little questions in the council, but from our perspective, nothing has been done to drive transparency or accountability from a student perspective. Nothing.

Now who is being ignorant....

roro1neil0

reunion wrote: »

I believe Sid was banned.

you are, as usual, wrong. the account is closed if you search.

As for Anti-soc, whatever their goal is, their method is highly flawed (and illegal). They are breaking the law by providing a persistent distress, fear or intimidation under the Criminal Justice Act of 2006.[/QUOTE]

you are wrong here, so seriously wrong that I am going to ask you to not make such defamatory comments again. You routinely post on this forum without a clue about what you're talking about. You're not alone, a lot of the posters here, like popoutman, really don't understand the things they talk about.

In some ways I understand the frustration Derek Daly has with the student body and the members of the different councils. They all seem so bloody stupid, misinformed, over opinionated. You have zero legal training reunion, you barely know how to read or write judging by your posts and you are here quoting the criminal justice act when you obviously don't even know the difference between a civil dispute and a criminal offence.

nobody has been exposed to fear or intimidation by antisoc, your implication that they had is a lie, defamation and quite sinister and either alludes to your own stupidity, malice or both.

Cadroc

roro1neil0 wrote: »

You don't know what we do, you don't know what we are about, you don't know what you're talking about popoutman

Pretty sure that's the point of him calling ye hypocrites... Ye say ye want transparency, yet yer not open or transparent. Hence the growing palls for strapping on a pair.

Also to quote you 'Say it to our faces', I would be glad to say any of this to yer faces, however I'm sure ye don't know who I am and since ye are a bit of secret society I don't know who ye are.

roro1neil0

Cadroc wrote: »

Pretty sure that's the point of him calling ye hypocrites... Ye say ye want transparency, yet yer not open or transparent. Hence the growing palls for strapping on a pair.

Also to quote you 'Say it to our faces', I would be glad to say any of this to yer faces, however I'm sure ye don't know who I am and since ye are a bit of secret society I don't know who ye are.

we'll find out who you are so

Cadroc

roro1neil0 wrote: »

we'll find out who you are so

Well when ye do, come find me in person.

This kind of thing by the way could be taken by some people as a form of intimidation to not go against yer policies. Which is counter-productive if you think about what ye claim yer goals are.

roro1neil0

you invited me to come speak with you, pm me your email

reunion

roro1neil0 wrote: »

you are wrong here, so seriously wrong that I am going to ask you to not make such defamatory comments again. You routinely post on this forum without a clue about what you're talking about. You're not alone, a lot of the posters here, like popoutman, really don't understand the things they talk about.

You are saying that "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about" is damaging to my character and others opinions of me in a negative manner. A defamatory comment!

The tip of the iceberg we were graciously allowed to know about, provides fear and intimidation.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

we'll find out who you are so

A recent intimidation which isn't a new thing. You have done this many times before in a persistent manner.

roro1neil0

shut up ya eejit

Cadroc

roro1neil0 wrote: »

you invited me to come speak with you, pm me your email

I would prefer to see ye try (and fail) to find out who I am first Mr. O'Neil. You did say you would do it, I would like to see you make an attempt. Unless this was just an intimidation tactic? Perish the thought!

roro1neil0

ok will try

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Your post was based on ignorance and malice and as such, doesn't really warrant a significant portion of my time in replying. But this once I will make an exception.

Thank you for deigning to respond, this time with a little bit more thought this time instead of crass and childish responses as per your previous response.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Your entire premise, by the way, is based on ignorance. Because you actually don't know what antisoc does and doesn't do. All you know is what I choose to leak onto this website, which is just the tip of the iceberg.

A perfect example of a lack of openness, and an issue that I see that others have with the "anti-soc" as well. I'm basing my opinion and responses on what I have read from those that have said that they associate with "anti-soc", and from what I've seen around the college. Am I not entitled to form an opinion based on my experience? If you wish to affect my opinion, I have given already how that can be done, by doing positive things instead of railing all of the time.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Based on my impressions of this university and the SU over the last 2 years nobody, absolutely nobody, has made any attempt to call the university or the SU on its bull****. Maybe i'm being harsh on the lads like reunion or ginge_young who ask their little questions in the council, but from our perspective, nothing has been done to drive transparency or accountability from a student perspective. Nothing.

I think you are being a more than a little bit unfair to those that are trying to improve things. You haven't been around long enough to have seen what previous incarnations of the ULSU have tried to do with working with the University, and you haven't been around long enough to see what has been done in the past regarding improvements within the SU. You have been around long enough to see a poor enough ULSU incarnation during a financially difficult time.
Have you ever tried to work with the university whan you've managed to piss off the people that are interfaced with that work in the college? You do realise that the college is mostly staffed with public servants and that it operates under public-service policies for the most part? A lot of the individuals working in the college that I have worked with in the past *are* good people, hamstrung from doing useful things by a small minority that ensure that their turf is not imposed upon. Based on my experience in the college over the past 2 decades or so, I have seen that if the university wishes to do something, it goes ahead and does it. SU having an interface to the university means that the SU gets to hear of those decisions, but by no means does the SU have a veto - and it does well to remember that. It's much easier to try and persuade those that have the real power in the college to do things if the benefit can be seen by all parties involved in the decision making process, and unfortunately it seems that the ULSU is not involved in the making of a lot of the real decisions. The overall impression I have received from staff members regarding the current SU is that it is not as good to work with as previous SU incarnations.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

The only POSITIVE changes to this has been implemented by people associated with antisoc. Since the efforts made my people associated with antisoc, mostly from September of last year, we have seen a concerted effort by MORE people to question the service they receive from their SU and their university.

Well without any openness in the "anti-soc" this is a moot point. I'd be more inclined to say that it is the turnaround in Irish society against Fianna Fail and the coverage of the global "Occupy" movement that has given the average apathetic student another point of view to assess.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

It would be completely arrogant and presumptuous for antisoc to take the entire credit for this change in attitude and we are not overlooking TST etc. but we feel we have been instrumental in a change of attitude.

I wouldn't think that the "anti-soc" can claim *any* credit, well not from anything that I've seen or heard.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

We honesty don't care who laughs at us, what is said behind our backs and what nasty, malicious little lies those we low moral character say about us. I certainly don't care.

The trouble is, the machinations and silliness that the "anti-soc" are becoming known for, are undermining the attempts by others to do some real work for real changes. The last thing that is needed is for those that could be amenable to the changes becoming polarised against any change because of possible association with a fringe group such as the "anti-soc". Oh, and I see what you tried there regading a personal attack - trouble is my moral character is not relevant here for a discussion on the "anti-soc".

roro1neil0 wrote: »

People have been aware of and critical of the SU in the past but never really made an effort to get that opinion out there. And we think, antisoc have given some people a vehicle to do that and others the spur on they needed to make their voice heard.

I hear no voice of "anti-soc" other than some cheaply-printed flyers around the college. It's not exactly the best impression that you want to give though, is it?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Case in point, antisoc is in no way associated with or endorsed by David Hartery. But antisoc started the ball rolling on criticising every ****ty thing the SU has done especially with regard to the health centre and this has given (in our opinion) more impetus to people like David Hartery making his own criticisms in his own way.

Funny you should mention that - I can't see any correlation there whatsoever. If you claim no association, then by definition you have no grounds to claim any credit...
You've got to realise that the current situation financially in the SU is unprecedented, and this itself is what has prompted people to start speaking up.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

You don't know what we do, you don't know what we are about, you don't know what you're talking about popoutman

Please steer clear of the personal attacks. Doesn't make the "anti-soc" agenda any more believable when you aren't able to do it right. Plus it's another example of the lack of openness that needs to be addressed. How do you as a group expect to be taken seriously otherwise?

--

The whole "anti-soc" sounded like a fairly good idea at the start, but the implementation has proven to be rather poor, with very naive and poorly-thought out public relations. It's a pity as it did show some promise.

I'd love to see some changes made in how UL and ULSU are run, but I am not naive enough to think that the "anti-soc" methods are the right way forwards. I'm doing my own work in my own way to try to improve things, but I'm not advertising it here as it would undermine what I am trying to do. One person at a time, often enough, can move more than posters ever would.

I think that the "anti-soc" could do a *lot* better than it has proven so far to be. A little bit of smartness, and a lot of politicking would go a long way, instead of the childishness that it currently appears to be fond of. Though to be fair, it's not that easy to motivate an apathetic student these years, especially an average UL student.

Anyway I think I've made my point without wasting too much of my time, so I'm off to do some real work now.

<note to the boardsies - I do apologise for the multiquote/multiresponse à la Sid, but I think it was appropriate here.>

roro1neil0

hi sid good to see you back on boards

Popoutman

Lame!
If this were a college assignment you'd get it back saying "please do better"

I've been on boards since it was used by quake players - long before Sid ever thought about using a computer. Your comment is defamatory!

(though I do admit the style was similar for that post, but after all, who was I responding to and what was their recent post style for longer rebuttals? Eh? Thought so!

)

roro1neil0

well someone as experienced as you with boards.ie would have no problem making up a few aliases to cause mischief and you've obviously come in with your main account now as a big gun.

not sure what you want me to say, you have your opinion, i have mine, you're can't be proven to be correct, i don't need to prove mine because i know it's true.

you've basically tried to argue that antisoc is purposeless or negative or something and I have shown you that it isn't, yet you still dispute that. I don't really care.

I don't really have to justify myself to someone who isn't even in ul you.

Steeevvyb

Hi all,

We just posted about this.
http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/news/186-medicalcentre

Stephen

Nockz

roro1neil0 wrote: »

well someone as experienced as you with boards.ie would have no problem making up a few aliases to cause mischief and you've obviously come in with your main account now as a big gun.

not sure what you want me to say, you have your opinion, i have mine, you're can't be proven to be correct, i don't need to prove mine because i know it's true.

you've basically tried to argue that antisoc is purposeless or negative or something and I have shown you that it isn't, yet you still dispute that. I don't really care.

I don't really have to justify myself to someone who isn't even in ul you.

Antisoc is pontless though... Let's not be silly.

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

well someone as experienced as you with boards.ie would have no problem making up a few aliases to cause mischief and you've obviously come in with your main account now as a big gun.

not sure what you want me to say, you have your opinion, i have mine, you're can't be proven to be correct, i don't need to prove mine because i know it's true.

you've basically tried to argue that antisoc is purposeless or negative or something and I have shown you that it isn't, yet you still dispute that. I don't really care.

I don't really have to justify myself to someone who isn't even in ul you.

Oh, my.
You fail!
So hard!
You are giving the appearance of someone that is utterly clueless, and you are showing yourself up as being pretty poor at responding to any well-reasoned argument.

I have pretty conclusively shown that the "anti-soc" has not reached its stated objectives. No amount of rhetoric on your part will change that, and I think you know that too, hence your admission of defeat above.

My contention that the "anti-soc" appears useless is based on its profile and behaviour to date, and has definitely been borne out in truth. Nothing that has been seen on campus, or that has been said here in this forum has shown anything other than empty words with inaction, or action that is dangerous and most likely illegal in nature. There's some tagging on the coattails of people that have done something useful and/or have actually been involved in what is going on, but nothing else.

I'd say that there's no place in the repair of the current situation in ULSU or UL as a whole by the "anti-soc" in its current format. It appears to serve only one purpose, and that purpose uses good people and resources that would be better aimed at different methods.

I'm unsure why you think that I'm not on campus anymore - I think you either have some incorrect information or someone's lying to you, causing you to write untruths here. Not a sign of cleverness by far. Your dossier-creating sub-soc appears to be as much of a failure as the rest.

Oh, and you *do* have to justify yourself as you appear to be the voice of the "anti-soc" on here, so you really have to try harder to justify the positions taken and the methods used, no matter how hard they appear to fail. Any other response just reinforces the impression of childishness and silliness that the "anti-soc" has earned for itself recently.

You appear to believe that the "anti-soc" has done something useful. I'd say that you are unfortunately mistaken. I've no problems with my statements, as my viewpoints have been proven to be true, instead of bald assertions by yourself that your points are true. You have yet to prove anything about your points, whereas the "anti-soc"'s actions have already proven mine.

Oh and as point of information, the word you should have been using was "you" not "you're". Are you sure you made it to college at all? After all as spokesman one would expect a better class of writing..

Thank you for the "big gun" compliment. My many thanks and responses from appreciative boardsies bear that truth out as well

I don't have any other aliases by the way, but I'm interested to hear which ones you think I am ghostwriting for.

I have a recommendation for you. If I were you, I would toddle along and try to reform the "anti-soc" into something that is actually useful, that can work on campus in parallel with the current institutions, and that is properly open, well organised, and that can actually do something positive in its own right.

As it is now, the "anti-soc" gives every appearance of being a waste of time and even a waste of good paper. The phrase "p|ssing into the wind" comes to mind a lot.

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

Oh, my.
You fail!
So hard!
You are giving the appearance of someone that is utterly clueless, and you are showing yourself up as being pretty poor at responding to any well-reasoned argument.

I think you are grossly exaggerating the soundness of any 'argument' you have put forward. You are just giving your fairly uniformed opinion and then making some appeals to seniority because 'you've been around a long time'. They may fool the lily-livered and naive but not me. You've got your 5 minutes on the soap box and you've gotten carried away.

I have pretty conclusively shown that the "anti-soc" has not reached its stated objectives. No amount of rhetoric on your part will change that, and I think you know that too, hence your admission of defeat above.

Well remind me what the states objectives are and then show me where the time limit has ran out on achieving said objectives. This above segment is example of you telling a complete untruth to disguise the fact, the thinly veiled fact, you actually don't have a point.

My contention that the "anti-soc" appears useless is based on its profile and behaviour to date, and has definitely been borne out in truth.

Is this hubris or ignorance. You do not know what antisoc have been doing in the last two weeks.

Nothing that has been seen on campus, or that has been said here in this forum has shown anything other than empty words with inaction, or action that is dangerous and most likely illegal in nature.

What have you seen on campus that is associated with antisoc. I've seen nothing on campus associated with antisoc so I don't know you are drawing those kind of conclusions. What is illegal and what is dangerous? Those are two stupid and careless as well as completely unfounded comments to make. I know what you're doing.

There's some tagging on the coattails of people that have done something useful and/or have actually been involved in what is going on, but nothing else.

Show me. Give real examples. You speak in a vague manner with the mostly tenuous links to reality that the gullible on this forum will take you at your word but I won't. You are taking complete unfounded nonsense and I indulged you in the name of sport. Now is the time for me to show you to be a complete charlatan.

I'd say that there's no place in the repair of the current situation in ULSU or UL as a whole by the "anti-soc" in its current format.

What gives you the right to say that? What are your SU credentials? What is your knowledge of the current antisoc manifesto. Explain to me how you are entitled to even think in this manner.

It appears to serve only one purpose, and that purpose uses good people and resources that would be better aimed at different methods.

What in heaven's name are you talking about?

I'm unsure why you think that I'm not on campus anymore - I think you either have some incorrect information or someone's lying to you, causing you to write untruths here. Not a sign of cleverness by far. Your dossier-creating sub-soc appears to be as much of a failure as the rest.

If you check my post I almost immediately corrected that error, so quickly it doesn't' even come up as a edited post. You left college, worked a bit, got the sack and now you're back doing a post-grad. You remind me of a lot of people.

Oh, and you *do* have to justify yourself as you appear to be the voice of the "anti-soc" on here, so you really have to try harder to justify the positions taken and the methods used, no matter how hard they appear to fail. Any other response just reinforces the impression of childishness and silliness that the "anti-soc" has earned for itself recently.

your use of very childish internet memes like 'fail' are both embarrassing and insightful. One it proves that you're just another nerd and secondly, that gives me good reason not to engage in this silly argument.

Oh and as point of information, the word you should have been using was "you" not "you're". Are you sure you made it to college at all? After all as spokesman one would expect a better class of writing..

People make typos all the time and they get corrected. It's no big deal.

Thank you for the "big gun" compliment. My many thanks and responses from appreciative boardsies bear that truth out as well I don't have any other aliases by the way, but I'm interested to hear which ones you think I am ghostwriting for.

This is the most tragic of all this. 3 idiots and myself thanked your post due to its size. And you're taking that a sign of encouragement and reason to continue this tirade. The SU has always been full of retards and I now I know why you are trying to defend it.

I have a recommendation for you. If I were you, I would toddle along and try to reform the "anti-soc" into something that is actually useful, that can work on campus in parallel with the current institutions, and that is properly open, well organised, and that can actually do something positive in its own right.

Toddle back to what ever bridge you came from, your time in the SU is done.

As it is now, the "anti-soc" gives every appearance of being a waste of time and even a waste of good paper. The phrase "p|ssing into the wind" comes to mind a lot.

You cast these used generalisations on things you haven't been able to comprehend. You're are alluding to all these 'campus' incidents believed to be the work of antisoc. Give me some examples so I can inform the rest of the readers how poorly informed you are. You haven't got a clue what antisoc does or doesn't do. You don't know who is in it and you don't know what their goals are.

The SU past and present have continued to fail the students in their representation and their behaviour. In the last 5 years I have documented evidence there has been a culture of over spending and under budgeting. There was a culture of spend spend spend because the debts will have to be paid by subsequent, never current sabbats. I don't have records for your time but I have no reason to believe they aren't the same.

Students, should never, be in charge of organisations the size of the students' union. It's an unpleasant fact. They are multi-million euro companies and popularity contests shouldn't decide who gets to be the boss. The general managers in SU and their previous incarnations have also been monumental failures so it is a difficult problem to solve.

I'd excuse the current team for not being able to deal with financial crisis, it's to be expected. I'd excuse the current team for squabbling etc. because that's to be expected for 20something year olds who have too much power. but what isn't to be excused is these knuckle-heads not doing their job as representatives and relays. I'm saying their stupid, not malicious. They almost all do a good job of the 1-1 situations but almost all of them fail on collective representation.

Don't excuse silly little thanks from silly little boards posters for justification of your unprecedented attack on a voluntary group of students committed to the betterment of the UL experience. None of us are putting our names down for the presidents award, none of us are putting this **** on our CV, none of us are looking from kudos or thanks, especially not boards.ie thanks like some pathetic humans. We're doing this for the benefit of the students, present and future. If are efforts become more negative and positive we'll change our ways, until then it's full steam ahead.

Back to you, ****ers!

i'll correct the mistakes in this post later

Nockz

Alternatively, what have Antisoc done?

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

I think you are grossly exaggerating the soundness of any 'argument' you have put forward. You are just giving your fairly uniformed opinion and then making some appeals to seniority because 'you've been around a long time'. They may fool the lily-livered and naive but not me. You've got your 5 minutes on the soap box and you've gotten carried away.

You have failed to show how my opinion is uninformed - I've already stated it is based on what "anti-soc" has appeared to have done and what its apparent spokesman has said. If I'm uninformed, it's entirely due to your errors in not being open enough.
My arguments are sound based on the currently available information - including the information (tip of iceberg) that you yourself have made available. If there's an error I say it is yours.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Well remind me what the states objectives are and then show me where the time limit has ran out on achieving said objectives. This above segment is example of you telling a complete untruth to disguise the fact, the thinly veiled fact, you actually don't have a point.

No, my points still stand: "anti-soc" is not open. "anti-soc" is not transparent. "anti-soc" has not acheived anything concrete through its efforts. The efforts apparently being put into "anti-soc" would be better used in other directions.
All of those still stand...

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Is this hubris or ignorance. You do not know what antisoc have been doing in the last two weeks.

Neither does anyone else it seems - suggesting that my points on openness are proven true.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

What have you seen on campus that is associated with antisoc. I've seen nothing on campus associated with antisoc so I don't know you are drawing those kind of conclusions. What is illegal and what is dangerous? Those are two stupid and careless as well as completely unfounded comments to make. I know what you're doing.

You haven't a clue what I'm doing

That's what makes this discussion all the more amusing to me. So, lets get this straight. You are saying that nobody associated with "anti-soc" has anything to do with the amusingly anonymous scraps of paper with pokemon/manga themes etc on them, that are appearing around the college (on campus no less!!) - after all what's the title of this whole thread?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Show me. Give real examples. You speak in a vague manner with the mostly tenuous links to reality that the gullible on this forum will take you at your word but I won't. You are taking complete unfounded nonsense and I indulged you in the name of sport. Now is the time for me to show you to be a complete charlatan.

The only unfounded nonsense that you think I'm taking is the nonsense that you have been dribbling over the past few pages of posts.
I'm awaiting your big reveal by the way. Oh was that it? "B" for effort and hype, "D" for implementation and follow-up
Ah - the tagging on coat-tails was referring to the way that you referred to David Hartery, as it was pointless bringing that into it as you yourself said that you had no right to talk about his posting. The only conclusion that I could draw from that was to get a little bit of a halo effect from someone that was actually putting their views out there. Now if you think that David Hartery was spouting nonsense then I think that you probably should take a rest from this, and try to see what's actually going on.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

What gives you the right to say that? What are your SU credentials? What is your knowledge of the current antisoc manifesto. Explain to me how you are entitled to even think in this manner.

As a person on campus I have just as much right to an opinion as you do. Nothing I have seen so far suggests that "anti-soc" have any use on campus, or even off-campus. Nothing positive has been shown to be done by "anti-soc".
Are you arrogant enough to think that your opinion carries any more weight than anyone elses - especially when you haven't been here long enough (either UL or Boards) to have earned a reputation that deserves the opinion be weighed as such? I think that you do think that way, and it's a pity as it shows clearly through your postings. It can't show through your actions as there hasn't been any..

roro1neil0 wrote: »

What in heaven's name are you talking about?

Let me ann and barry that for you: Being involved in "anti-soc" gives the appearance of wasting time and wasting the efforts of good people, making it harder to make real progress with the real problems that are apparent in the SU and maybe in UL as a whole, i.e. nothing positive is being seen to be done.
Did you understand that that time?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

If you check my post I almost immediately corrected that error, so quickly it doesn't' even come up as a edited post. You left college, worked a bit, got the sack and now you're back doing a post-grad. You remind me of a lot of people.

You should go back to your dossier-building comrades as the information that you have is unfortunately wrong. I'd even go so far as to say that you are lying through your teeth there. In fact - post reported for libel.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

your use of very childish internet memes like 'fail' are both embarrassing and insightful. One it proves that you're just another nerd and secondly, that gives me good reason not to engage in this silly argument.

Ah you though I was propogating a meme. How.. cute

No.. I was talking about your failure (that thing that is the opposite of success) as a group to improve transparency within the UL institutions and the SU. As it is you appear to have been involved for nearly a year based on your own comments, and there's been a patent lack of anything concrete to show. That is a good definition of a failure by anyone's standards. Prove me wrong and state the concrete successes attributable directly and wholly to "anti-soc". You can't or you would have already.
I'll give you a better reason not to engage in this silly argument - there's nothing to defend on your side, so you are right, this argument *is* silly, but unfortunately for you not for the reason you think..

roro1neil0 wrote: »

People make typos all the time and they get corrected. It's no big deal.

True, but group spokesmen should take greater care when communicating, lest they appear to be unprofessional. If a spokesman fails to take care of the little things, how can people be sure that care will be taken with the things that are actually important?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

This is the most tragic of all this. 3 idiots and myself thanked your post due to its size. And you're taking that a sign of encouragement and reason to continue this tirade. The SU has always been full of retards and I now I know why you are trying to defend it.

Oh, I'm not talking about my posts in this thread. I'm talking in general on Boards. Tirade? Go read through your own posts and compare, and see which ones are more of a tirade (here's a clue - the answer is your own posts).
If you think the SU is full of retards, I'd like you to go in tomorrow morning, stand at the reception desk and tell everyone to their face that they are a retard. You wouldn't last long before coming up in front of Disciplinary Committee. I'd suggest that you apologise to the good people in the SU for that rather unfortunate tarbrushing - most of them don't deserve it at all.
I'd like to hear what you think you know about why you think I'm defending the SU? I'd suggest you re-read the thread, it'll hopefully be clear to you that pointing out the deficiencies in "anti-soc" is not a defence of the SU, but good try at deflecting. I do think that the SU needs to improved, just not by pointlessly being "anti-".

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Toddle back to what ever bridge you came from, your time in the SU is done.

Again, please try to make sure that the information that you have to hand is correct, as it makes you look moronic when you state something as incorrect as this. Please do try harder - it's a good idea when trying to be insulting, to have the right stuff to insult about.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

You cast these used generalisations on things you haven't been able to comprehend. You're are alluding to all these 'campus' incidents believed to be the work of antisoc. Give me some examples so I can inform the rest of the readers how poorly informed you are. You haven't got a clue what antisoc does or doesn't do. You don't know who is in it and you don't know what their goals are.

I'd say you don't know yourself, or you'd have replied as such above. If there is nothing being done by "anti-soc" then that just continues to prove that nothing positive is being done. Otherwise you'd be crowing about it in a vain attempt to show me up. You have nothing to show, you have failed to be open and transparent, You are showing yourself to be more hypocritical than those that you are railing against. Your continued poor defence without meeting the requests for transparency yourselves positively reeks of desperation and hypocrisy.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

The SU past and present have continued to fail the students in their representation and their behaviour. In the last 5 years I have documented evidence there has been a culture of over spending and under budgeting. There was a culture of spend spend spend because the debts will have to be paid by subsequent, never current sabbats. I don't have records for your time but I have no reason to believe they aren't the same.

Congratulations on reading the budget submissions - available only because the SU is more open and transparent than you have alluded to. It's unfortunate that you are so inexperienced, as you'd not have admitted that here in an argument liek this - it only weakens your position and makes your points a little less believable

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Students, should never, be in charge of organisations the size of the students' union. It's an unpleasant fact. They are multi-million euro companies and popularity contests shouldn't decide who gets to be the boss. The general managers in SU and their previous incarnations have also been monumental failures so it is a difficult problem to solve.

Fact eh? [citation needed] You underestimate the capability of people in general. What did you think the Irish General Elections are themselves? They are exactly a popularity contest, or are you actually that naive about the real world?
As a point of information, the General Manager (in general over the past decade or so) is one person that has kept the show on the road more than you will ever appreciate. You show your ignorance on the subject, which renders a lot of your arguments rather pointless - after all if you fail to understand what you are being "anti-" about, what's the point?

roro1neil0 wrote: »

I'd excuse the current team for not being able to deal with financial crisis, it's to be expected. I'd excuse the current team for squabbling etc. because that's to be expected for 20something year olds who have too much power.

How magnaminous of you. They should be thrilled to see that you excuse them.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

but what isn't to be excused is these knuckle-heads not doing their job as representatives and relays. I'm saying their stupid, not malicious. They almost all do a good job of the 1-1 situations but almost all of them fail on collective representation.

Interesting opinion. Would you like to arrange to meet with each of the sabbaticals, while we see you say this straight to their faces? That I'd like to see. Wait - you wouldn't do that as it's easy to type words into a keyboard, but so hard to say it to someone's face. I know your type well.
(note that I'm not defending the SU, but pointing out the poor method in the attacks on the SU.)

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Don't excuse silly little thanks from silly little boards posters for justification of your unprecedented attack on a voluntary group of students committed to the betterment of the UL experience. None of us are putting our names down for the presidents award, none of us are putting this **** on our CV, none of us are looking from kudos or thanks, especially not boards.ie thanks like some pathetic humans. We're doing this for the benefit of the students, present and future. If are efforts become more negative and positive we'll change our ways, until then it's full steam ahead.

No wonder you are not advertising membership. You really are afraid to put your money where your mouth is. It appears that you are not proud of membership of "anti-soc", and I wouldn't blame you really. To be honest if I were an employer or an HR rep in a company I would ensure that a CV that had this particular type of maliciousness and cowardice on it, that it would go to the "no" pile.

You have not yet shown that you have done *anything* useful at all, except assert here that you are doing something. Prove it..... or just shut up and leave the rest of us to go and do something useful about the situation.

wnolan1992

Anyone else recognise a familiar pattern re-appearing in this thread? #preciousmemories

Popoutman

Yeah, except I'm as far from Sid as you can get.. we never quite saw eye to eye when Sid ( or at least the person that admitted to being Sid ) was attending college in Dublin.

I think I'm done here, as it's quite apparent that the "anti-soc" hasn't really got anything useful to show at this point, and it's only hot air. It's always fun to have an argument like this, but as a generalisation of arguments such as this one it's tiresome dealing with the deluded. It's fun for a while but then you realise they have to go back in the box for release the next time a laugh is desired.

I'm looking forwards to a day when something like the "anti-soc" can do it right and actually do something useful. Until then, other people will just have to try to do something useful and positive about the situation.

Nockz

I'm just looking forward to a time where the stuff they have done can be typed on at least one bullet point. It'll be a while for that suppose.

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

long post

I stopped at the bit where you thought the pokemon posters are the work of antisoc. that shows you haven't read this thread and you don't know what you're talking about. we can't claim credit for the posters (which we haven), and I've said twice it wasn't our work.

Secondly you accuse me of me of libel, you'd think someone with your posting pedigree would know how libel works. I can't libel you because you don't have a real identity, and your popoutman identity doesn't have a reputation to defame. I hope the mods give that complaint the attention it needs -**** all.

no need to read or respond to anything else, you're just a begrudger from the old days who got a good thread kicking back then who is a glutton for more punishment. you've past your word count, you're done and i'm done. you don't know anything and i know everything.

thanks for your time

roro1neil0

Popoutman wrote: »

Interesting opinion. Would you like to arrange to meet with each of the sabbaticals, while we see you say this straight to their faces? That I'd like to see. Wait - you wouldn't do that as it's easy to type words into a keyboard, but so hard to say it to someone's face. I know your type well.
(note that I'm not defending the SU, but pointing out the poor method in the attacks on the SU.)

You are wrong. Completely wrong in your presumptions. The founder of antisoc spoke directly with Derek Daly and told him what he thought of his performance. He met with Tara feeney and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met with SJ and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met with AK and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met PR and KOB but never discussed their jobs with them.

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

I stopped at the bit where you thought the pokemon posters are the work of antisoc. that shows you haven't read this thread and you don't know what you're talking about. we can't claim credit for the posters (which we haven), and I've said twice it wasn't our work.

Secondly you accuse me of me of libel, you'd think someone with your posting pedigree would know how libel works. I can't libel you because you don't have a real identity, and your popoutman identity doesn't have a reputation to defame. I hope the mods give that complaint the attention it needs -**** all.

no need to read or respond to anything else, you're just a begrudger from the old days who got a good thread kicking back then who is a glutton for more punishment. you've past your word count, you're done and i'm done. you don't know anything and i know everything.

thanks for your time

And that's as good an admission of defeat as I have heard in a good while.
Thanks for playing, it's been emotional.

Do come back when you have something useful to add

We'll miss you otherwise...

roro1neil0

Yeah, except I'm as far from Sid as you can get.. we never quite saw eye to eye when Sid ( or at least the person that admitted to being Sid ) was attending college in Dublin.

are you sure you have the right sid because sid doesn't know who you are (yet)

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

You are wrong. Completely wrong in your presumptions. The founder of antisoc spoke directly with Derek Daly and told him what he thought of his performance. He met with Tara feeney and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met with SJ and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met with AK and told her exactly what he thought of her performance. He met PR and KOB but never discussed their jobs with them.

I think you can't read. Too many words for you?

Re-read my post again, and see that I said "you" not "the founder of "anti-soc".
And there's a difference between what you said in your insults above, and what you have said that your dear leader said.
There's a gulf of a difference between a side insult delivered in a backhanded fashion on a forum such as this and a face to face conversation. I was suggesting that you wouldn't give the same insult that you wrote here face to face.
I've chatted with some of the sabbats, and I've also expressed my opinion about the way things were being done - but no insults.

Please do try harder to be accurate. It would have helped to strengthen your side of this silly and utterly pointless argument about how useless the "anti-soc" is.
I'm in it for the amusement but also that I think that it's a pity to see such good efforts being completely wasted with the "anti-soc". I'll happily assist those that are doing something useful, which unfortunately precludes my associating with the likes of you.

Popoutman

roro1neil0 wrote: »

are you sure you have the right sid because sid doesn't know who you are (yet)

Depends - I'm sure I know who the meme-generating Sid is/was, but I'm amused that he still hasn't figured it out yet.

Not surprising that Sid is involved with your favourite waste of time.

Oh, and was that a thinly veiled threat? Interesting.

roro1neil0

send me a pm who you think sid is because i'm pretty sure you have the wrong guy