kuang1 wrote: » There is something I should make right here: You're absolutely right about one thing; I DID make assumptions about you. And I shouldn't have. For that I apologise, I'm sorry. It's a trait I despise when I see it in others, (judging people, pigeon holing them based on the objectors standpoint) so for me to be guilty of it in this instance is hypocritical. (And I'm not following that with any "But..."!) Sincerely, My bad.
kuang1 wrote: » Some of you are missing the point and putting words in people's mouths. .. I think most people know (both in waterford and outside of waterford) that the waterford of today is not 'militant' or over unionised etc. However there is a PERCEPTION out there, particularly internationally, that this IS the case. And I know for a fact that it is discouraging large investment firms/companies from diverting resources to waterford. (Was speaking to a corporate banker recently who confirmed this) So no, it's not true that we are a militant, 'we-love-to-have-strikes-for-no-good-reason' city. Unfortunately, truth doesn't kill off reputation.
kuang1 wrote: » I've no real problem/quarrel with any of that fuzzy. And I hope nobody thinks I'm trolling with any of this. The banker friend of mine is a life-long good friend who yes, I trust. Remember the context too, these investor types were comparing/contrasting everything to Dublin. Infrastructure was also mentioned and (it won't surprise anyone here) that our Airport (or lack thereof) also got highlighted as a minus. You say that this would be "be easily proven wrong" fuzzy. How? If it is possible to do that, then maybe we (or city council) could somehow incorporate into how we market ourselves?
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » The airport is a non issue. Galway airport is closed and it has not affected job creation there. The airport is another red herring.Like the labour militancy myth! Its funny how it was never an issue until the motorway opened. Until then it was road access. Then it was a university. Then it was an airport. If we had a metro, ten lane highways coming out of our ears, The whole Ivy leage here they would have some other BS excuse. Not enough Gay people or some ludicrous sh!t! The air industry is so large and chartered flights are a dime a dozen. As for your banker friend......pffft! Bankers sure when have they ever been wrong?
kuang1 wrote: » (Genuine question: ) So do you think: Waterford is doing its bit, it's all the government's fault? And strictly speaking, my banker friend isn't expressing his own opinion, he relayed an anecdote from work to me. So if you have difficulty believing this to be true (which doesn't ruffle a single feather on my back by the way...nobody should believe me just coz I say it! I could be a total wind-up merchant for all you know, so of course you're entitled to dismiss this as BS as is anyone else. And I'm not on any crusade to shove this story down people's throats as the gospel according to kuang or any of that sh1te...we choose to believe what we choose to believe. The beauty of free will. Long may it continue.) then one of the following applies: 1. I'm lying/inventing this story. 2. My friend is lying to me and I'm telling the truth. (As far as I know the truth to be.) 3. These investors are lying and my friend is telling the truth as am I. (As far as both he and I know the truth to be.) I (and I alone) can be certain that it's not no.1. I can only be certain to the degree that a good friend trusts another good friend that it's not no.2. As for no.3? I can't quantify that one. So of course I can't stand behind this staunchly and defend it to the last...I don't bloody want to defend it as I would be happier if it WEREN'T true. Or of course it may be true but you choose not to accept/believe that that could happen for reasons you have already stated. WHICH IS 100% FINE! i.e. if you respond to this fuzzy, please note I'm not out to dismantle your arguments. Reread my earlier posts THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS ON WATERFORD! It's a discussion forum..let's discuss.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » Here's a trick for you. Talk is cheap! Especially on the Internet and anecdotes are not worth the paper their printed on. Now you can continue with the he said she said all you want but FACTS are based on strong evidence and you have none. Now you say you have a banker friend. You could be lying you could be exagerating. I just don't know you said it your self. But I know one thing for someone who isn't on a crusade your making a lot of effort to for someone who isn't on a crusade. So pull the other one it has Bells on it. Now ask your Banker friend this. How many businesses in Waterford had their chief kidnapped by a local IRA unit. How may places in Waterford of over a thousand closed in a mere six years becauae of strikes.How many business of 200 or more did this happen to. Ask him how many task forces are set up for when major job losses have occured in Watered. Not once to my memory. Yet Digital in Galway, Dell in Limerick and many other places have had specific governmemt task forces set up any time their is job losses. We get 200K for almost 600 Employess out in Talk Talk! FFS. It might not be the governments fault but they have a lot to answer for.
kuang1 wrote: » Yeah good trick alright. But I feel you're selectively reading what I write...I'm supporting your choice to not believe the anectdote. Dunno how much clearer I can be with you! And again I'll repeat this coz it's clearly not sinking in...this concept of unionised/militant waterford is neither my own nor my friend's belief. So I could ask him all of the above but he'd be a little perplexed as to why I'd be asking him! I've a bell on me bike btw...rusty auld thing.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » The concept of a unionised/militant Waterford is nobody's belief. It is a hypothesis that has no evidence to support it ergo it is an excuse. Usually peddled by someone with an axe to grind or "not on a crusade" And why would your "friend" be perplexed? There is nothing bizzare about the question especially as you seem to have no difficulty discussing "militancy" in Waterford out of the blue! This is why your story doesn't add up.....Just plain old BS really. You might wanto to see a doctor about those imaginary bankers that are talking to you....
sparkling sea wrote: » It is some peoples belief/preception, it may not be your belief but its definitely some peoples belief, it was even the premise of a recent article in the Irish Times, as I'd say you know. Whether or not it is damaging to Waterford now can't really be gauged with any really credibility one way or another. kuang 1 states that it is definitely a problem , I have no idea why you don't beleive what kuang 1 is saying, why would someone lie about this, there's nothing to gain by it, is there?? You can't say our mythical union led image is damaging however you can't say its not - we just don't know - unless someone has researched this!! Have you any factual evidence to suggest that this hasn't been damaging or stopped businesses from opening here. I don't know one way or another - I only know that some people perceive Waterford as "a union town" - that might mean something, it might mean nothing, its always worth addressing. Either way its good to know that we may be veiwed as militiant, in the union sense anyway, we can only address this image, once we are aware it may be causing us problems, now who will address though ??? Waterford has to evolve its image, whether or not we are wrongly preceived as militiant, we need to be as pro-active as we possibly can regarding "the road to nowhere image" our city has. And people do hold this view. I hope West Pharma invests in our City, I hope people are upskilled now, so they can avail of the new possibilities companies like this one may bring for the people in the South East. We need the jobs now
kuang1 wrote: » Thank you for being concerned about my medical well being fuzz. It's quite obvious to me though that you've your mind set that when it comes to waterford, plenty of people seem to have axes to grind and the government abandons us. There's nothing wrong with our town, nothing needs fixing. They're all out to get us fuzz right? The bastards. (You give away some nice insights into how your mind works by the way..."discussing "militancy" in Waterford out of the blue!"...yeah out of the blue. That's what I stated earlier right? Oh wait...no I didn't. Mind you the use of phrases like 'out of the blue' do tend to add a vibe of irrationality when describing someone's behaviour. And you have been trying to portray my thoughts here as irrational. So adding 'out of the blue' would aid your argument; shame it's not one of your beloved and revered FACTS!) Denial fuzz...a big river in Africa.
Wanderer2010 wrote: » Can I just jump in there with your comment on a militant Waterford being rubbish and being peddled by people on a crusade. I did originally bring it up and it was based on years (years, not a he said, she said, I heard a friend of mine said etc) of working in the main factories and companies of this City. I am on no crusade nor do i have one iota of influence or power within the IDA and investment decision making. What I say comes from experience plain and simple. You dont have to agree with it or accept it but it doesnt make what I say wrong. I have witnessed a sizeable group of workers in factories in Waterford using their membership of the union as an excuse to sit back and so sweet FA, their work ethic almost being at one with whatever the union is doing. Work to be done? Cant, I have a union meeting. "Im not doing that work, its too hard, our union should look into this", "Im not using a ladder, I hurt my back over the weekend", I was even encouraged on one occasion to go home shortly after my shift started because me and a workmate were spoken to in a curt manner by a boss in a bad mood. No big deal to me, but my workmate? "I feel sick, my nerves are at me, how dare he speak to us like that, lets go to the doctor tomorrow and get signed off with stress"...this is all cold hard fact. I tell people and they just dont believe me. Before you say "people like this exist everywhere", im WELL aware of that but when i compare the number of people I worked with in other cities in Ireland, Waterford sticks out a mile with regard to the union being nothing more than a way of life for a massive amount of people who want to down tools at the drop of the hat because "the union wouldnt like it". The same people are just blind when it comes to arguing against the union and their uselessness regarding saving any jobs or having their own agendas with backhanders etc. Im not knocking Waterford (in fact I really like it and the people) but our reputation as being a tricky bunch IS there, like it or not. But as I mentioned before, it seems to be wilting away a little in the recent year and with the economy improving in increments, I for one hope Waterford can benefit from this investment.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » You were the one discussing "militancy" out of the blue with tyour imaginary friend. Tell us (If he/she exists) which institution was he in. AIB branch Tramore probably:D But I understand why you don't like facts. You have SFA to say otherwise. Put up or Shut up!
kuang1 wrote: » UB, Dublin. And I clearly have SFA to say that you want to listen to. I'll sleep fine knowing that. To get the thread back on track a bit, I echo one of your thoughts which is that this West Pharma news could well be the spark that relights our economic fire here. In the meantime I'm a firm believer in the notion that the more appealing a place we make our city to live, the more good things will be drawn to us. (Must apologise to you here fuzzy...this is based on no scientific/hard proof at all...I know how someone living their life not depending on everything to be proved to the nth degree scientifically clearly enrages you; not my intent. Anyone choosing to believe that there might be more to this life than just what we can see/touch/taste/smell/hear or prove via scientific means, must be fukkin daft altogether...lock 'em all up! Heathens!) Everything from holding a door for someone and smiling when you're handed your change, to the likes of the work that the heroes (not an overstatement) who've done mountainous work in New Street Gardens, these are measures that are within our own hands. Good or bad governments/politicians can influence a lot, but far from all. Enjoy our city, and brighten it in any tiny way you can daily.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » UB Dublin: enough of the platitudes towards those who did the new street gardens or "holding open doors" like your the only one with manners. All this means zilch if your willing to asassinate the character of your own city (If it is your city!) based on some biased belief.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » I don't believe what he says because it is this simple. NO EVIDENCE. All the evidence points to the contrary. With regard to perceptions the only people I hazard have such a perception are inavel gazers from Waterford. It most definitely is not a perception among industry. Otherwise there would be no industrry here at all! Now I am prepared to believe Waterford is militant once I see EVIDENCE! I am prepared to believe that that there is a perception problem once I see EVIDENCE. Now I explained this to you before the burden of proof is on those who make the claim and so far they have not done this. It's innocent until proven otherwise not the other way around. The principle is the same with any analysis Scientific or Forensic to do otherwise would not stand up to any credible standard. BTW the times article was not written on any precept towards a reputation for militancy. It was a general article on the travails of the city that made a minor reference to it. One way Waterford can evolve is image is by stopping the navel gazing about militancy because that is all this is. There is a major jobs announcement that could be the start of big things and this thread quickly descended into conversations about militancy that happened decades ago and was also happening everywhere else.So if you can't say something is damaging then the only assumption you can mayke is its not. To do otherwise is the behaviour of a paranoiac. And I would also question the bona fides of at least half the people who go on about it. Because whenever there is some "good news " for Waterford this forum seems to attract a sizeable amount of naysayers from other forums tellings us why we shouldn't have xyz. XYZ typically being the M9/FDI or a University upgrade. Waterford seems to have to go to astronomical lengths to prove itself that is definitely not the case for Cork and Galway.
sparkling sea wrote: » Your make a claim that, the perception of Waterford by some people as a union stonghold/militant City, has not affected our efforts to attract business to the City. I on the other hand, think it is possible it may have had a negative affect on our ability to attract companies, I can't prove anything because I don't know but neither do you,however the burdon of proof, as you call it lies with you, you are the one making the statement of fact, its up to you to prove its fact. Unfortunately, all you have put forward is your own opinion, this appears to based on your own perception - nothing sceintific in that and a strong bias exists with your preception - you think your right based on I don't know what, that will always skew the validity of what you say.
sparkling sea wrote: » Insults and bullying, calling people liars or naval gazers means nothing, its just a distraction. The validity of the past perception of Waterford as a militant county isn't in question, is this still having an effect on us now, I wouldn't have thought so, but on saying that, we do sometimes draw attention to ourselves for stupid reasons.
sparkling sea wrote: » I'm not surprised that people refuse to accept this possible problem, we do have a tendency to ignore what we don't like about our City and it hasn't and doesn't serve us well.
sparkling sea wrote: » Even in the height of the boom, we had great difficulty in attracting many of the major retailers, these same retailers were happy to locate in all the other Cities and in towns with smaller populations then Waterford - it is possible the negitive perception by some of our City as militant played apart in this, there is nothing you have posited that can, in anyway contradict this.
sparkling sea wrote: » Everyone on here wants Waterford to be a centre of excellence, however we need to address all out faults, whether or not we preceive these as problems. Even if a negative perception doesn't exist, we should still be striving to ensure our City is viewed (the majority, if not all of the time) as an active and vibrant place to be.
sparkling sea wrote: » Sadly, too many people think they can insult and bully people into using expensive carparks, carparks that are too far from the shops, the fiasco that is the quay, etc etc, all the while, the shops keep closing and our City Square is half empty, people refuse to accept the problems or even admit that there are so many problems.
sparkling sea wrote: » I know you don't agree but you haven't made a case for why the untested, so therefore unscienitic hypothesis is false, you just don't agree with it, thats your right, but it doesn't mean much really. I really hope that this company comes to Waterford and brings with it high tech, well paid jobs, the City and the people could use the money. Building a positive image of our City now is really all that matters, but we need to at least try to address all possible problems
kuang1 wrote: » Oh boy. Now it's me concerned with your health. Fuzzy. Seriously man...why the aggro? I'm assassinating my city? I don't think you'll find any evidence of that. (By all means look for it...I'm sure you already are!) Platitudes for the New Street Gardens crew? You maliciously referring to something I say as a 'platitude' does not kill the good intent with which it originated, much as you may wish otherwise. You seem to be attempting to stabilise your clearly delicate self-assuredness by belittling someone else's good will. Not cool. Not cool at all. I hope/wish in your everyday life you behave in a kinder, more understanding (dare I say compassionate?) way to those you frequent than what you've shown here. With your next post, I am giving you the last word my man. Use it in any way you see fit. I wish you well.
longshanks wrote: » Really sparkling sea? Do you eat babies?
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » The burden of proof is not on me because I made no assertions with regard militancy in Waterford. The people who made initial assertions are the ones with the burden of proof. Now if there is no evidence support those assertions it then you cannot assume. The only thing you can safely assume from a lack of evidence is that the initial assertion is wrong. Now if you don't know this even though you have been told then that is your problem but it still leads to the conclusion that the "Waterford Militancy" is in fact a myth. You can't prove fairies don't exist. That doesn't mean they do. And it doesn't mean each postulation is equal. You think a percerption of militancy harms business? Good for you! Now convince the rest of us!
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » The burden of proof is not on me because I made no assertions with regard militancy in Waterford. The people who made initial assertions are the ones with the burden of proof. Now if there is no evidence support those assertions it then you cannot assume. The only thing you can safely assume from a lack of evidence is that the initial assertion is wrong. Now if you don't know this even though you have been told then that is your problem but it still leads to the conclusion that the "Waterford Militancy" is in fact a myth. You can't prove fairies don't exist. That doesn't mean they do. And it doesn't mean each postulation is equal. You think a percerption of militancy harms business? Good for you! Now convince the rest of us! Ha Bullying! Now we're getting desperate! You're the one who follows me around from thread to thread. Why is that? The last time I think it was about Bescoes where again you were asking me to prove that something doesn't exist . Google what navel gazing is. You are doing it now! Because there is nothing to accept. Most of the things that have been mentioned are from 20-30 years ago. Your just regurgitating some meme from back then that 'says we are militant". We dealt with it. It s you and others that are still giving oxygen to it. There is plenty. The Newgate development was planned initially well before the height of the boom. You seem to forget that a sh!tload of retail sprung up around the ring=roads which are there for all to see. The objections to a ton of development was held up by one man practically as you well know who made 97 objections personally in a 2 year period. Most of which were against retail. These were all on the ABP website. Retailers were banging down the down to get in. Agree with you there but we're not going to do analysing yesterdays as in 80's problems i.e. militancy. This is navel gazing in the extreme. Man I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Bullying? Forcing people to use car parks. What's it got to do with anything For the umpteenth time I have no case to make. Here I will show you. ''Sparkling sea eats babies" It must be true because he can't prove he doesn't. How is building a positive image going on about things that buy your own admission you don't know exist. Think about it! This is the ACTUAL problem.
wellboytoo wrote: » Have read this with interest, you want proof of the perception of Militancy, look up Jimmy Kelly of Unite, should be a nice bit of bedtime reading there, a definite throw back to the seventies way of doing business, and still very active and vocal, and strongly associated with Waterford.
BBM77 wrote: » To my mind the people who claim Waterford has a particular militancy problem are doing the best job of giving evidence that it doesn’t. If the best examples they can come up with is one factory and one person in a city with a long industrial history it proves to me that Waterford has no particular militancy problem.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » Exactly its so hackneyed at this stage that its laughable! The fact we had a workers party councillor or two is ridiculous when it only takes a few hundred votes to get into the council. Forget that Dublin and Cork also voted for these people and still do as members of the labour party which is where they all went. Jimmy Kelly is from Waterford, one guys FFS and we're all tarred with the one brush. I wonder are they getting all self loathing up in Cavan/Monaghan over Brendan Ogle. Doubt it!
