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

A discussion on the rules.

1…6162646667…89

Comments

  • #1892
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'm not saying that, but I am saying that some action should be taken against everyone who breaks the rules. I'm talking about the persistent red carding of people on one side of the debate but not the other.

    Fair enough.

    All I can say is, we tend to notice names because of recurrent problems and reported posts. A newer poster might take longer to get on the radar.

    I think it is fair to add that you pm'd me in the past after a more pro Govt. type poster got banned, asking for a more lenient approach. Another poster from that side of the argument also got banned recently so I'm not sure if the perception of bias has that much grounds to it.

    Both sides tend to get away with a fair bit in the water charges and SF stuff as far as I can see.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1893
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Just want to get clarification whether it is against the rules to say something along the lines that
    • Glaucon: "Your position is wrong. A communist approach to this is the right way forward."
    • Socrates: "What are you talking about? Communism is bullsh*t.
    • Glaucon: "Really? It is proven to be the correct way forward. Here."
    • Socrates: "What?"
    • Glaucon: "You didn't read it? Unless you are going to counter that treatise with research we have nothing more to discuss."
    • Socrates: "Communism has been well discredited. I mean, as a political philosophy it doesn't make much sense, and we can look at examples of countries that adopted Communist practices and see what basket cases they ended up as"
    • Galucon: "I'm not hearing you counter my source with research. I'm hearing desperate unsubstantiated sentences. Until you can produce sources directly contradicting mine you have nothing more to add here."
    • Socrates: "Your source easily has 50,000 words in it!"
    • Glaucon: "La la la"

    Giving a source that is counter-productive to debate is surely against the charter... isn't it? Hell, I find it hard to see how that is even debate; it is merely stating a position and providing a hyperlink.


  • #1894
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Can we nail down what is or is not personal abuse as people have wildly different interpretations on what this is.
    Are we able to reference a poster at all, even though it may be warranted?

    For example, if a poster makes a racist remark (people of a certain skin colour and ethnicity are uneducated for example), if a another poster responds calling the poster a racist, is this deemed personal abuse?


  • #1895
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    jank wrote: »
    Can we nail down what is or is not personal abuse as people have wildly different interpretations on what this is.
    Are we able to reference a poster at all, even though it may be warranted?

    For example, if a poster makes a racist remark (people of a certain skin colour and ethnicity are uneducated for example), if a another poster responds calling the poster a racist, is this deemed personal abuse?
    IMHO the best thing to do with a racist post is to report it.


  • #1896
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    IMHO the best thing to do with a racist post is to report it.

    True, that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?


  • Advertisement
  • #1897
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jank wrote: »
    True, and that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?

    It's not even in the same league as calling out someone for racism. Shinnerbot is clearly a derogatory term. It's a way of dehumanising a poster and attempting to delegitimize their views by claiming theyre part of some cabal of internet trolls cooped up in Connolly House. It's cheap, lazy, total bullsh!t and completely contradictory not only to debate in general but to the quality of debate expected in the politics forum. it drags threads off topic (which is what i suspect those who use it want) and results in roundabout arguments and personal sniping.
    The only reason it's allowed is because mods on boards seem to be largely anti-SF and anti northerners. For proof you need look no further than the little "P!ss off nordies" box they've wedge into the politics forum last year


  • #1898
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

    I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

    I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?


  • #1899
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    jank wrote: »
    True, that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?
    Again, just my opinion, but if it were in a forum I moderate I would probably consider it back-seat moderation.


  • #1900
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

    I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

    I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?

    Agreed, if there isn't something done about this, the minute anyone gets a ban they will just set up a new account and continue acting in the same manner that leads to a ban. As bans aren't normally imposed on first offences, this is letting those who re-reg get away with repeated breaches.


  • #1901
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

    I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

    People are free to re-reg and close old accounts. Boards is also an anonymous site so unless the user makes public their old account name, they are entitled to a "clean slate" if they so wish. People close accounts for numerous reasons, it could well be a personal reason and "outing" them is in very poor taste, manners and possibly embarrassing.
    I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?

    I don't know how you got that idea. Somebody who has a previous track record on the forum will get that carried over to the new username. If they behave themselves under the new account that'll never be a problem!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #1902
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Shinnerbot is clearly a derogatory term.


    Shinnerbot is a term in common usage online in Ireland. There are references on politics.ie dating back to 2011. Here are some examples where it is used:

    http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/174539-martin-mcguinness-justifies-his-candidature-21.html


    http://www.thejournal.ie/profile/125140/no-its-amazing-shinnerbots-refer-anyone-doesnt-agree-1532184/

    https://youngcarson.wordpress.com/tag/shinnerbots/

    http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/shinnerbot/

    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/archive/index.php/t-23633.html


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1MSypdIYAAW65W.png

    I found the definition in the last picture to be interesting:

    "Shinnerbots - the apparently ubiquitous Sinn Fein supporters who will type anything into the internet, however disgusting or untrue, to defend their party and it's glorious leader".

    It is pretty clear that the above references and links demonstrate that the word is not a creation of boards.ie or the posters on it, is in common online use, and has a pretty simple description of the type of behaviour which attracts the label.

    That wouldn't stop it from being derogatory. Shinnerbots exist, but so does homosexuality and there are many unacceptable derogatory references to and labels for homosexuality that would lead to a ban, but there are the alternative acceptable references and labels (such as the word homosexuality or LGBT etc.). Such derogatory references are also in breach of equality law.

    However, none of that applies to shinnerbot. There is no common alternative to "shinnerbot" for the labelling of such behaviour and the use of it is not in breach of equality law.

    It would certainly be an interesting one for a Hiberno-English dictionary.


  • #1903
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    K-9 wrote: »
    People are free to re-reg and close old accounts. Boards is also an anonymous site so unless the user makes public their old account name, they are entitled to a "clean slate" if they so wish.
    We have both been mods on this site for a fair amount of time. We both know that creating a new account to circumvent a forum ban is not permitted.
    People close accounts for numerous reasons, it could well be a personal reason and "outing" them is in very poor taste, manners and possibly embarrassing.
    I can actually recall a thread in the moderators forum where the exception to not calling out a re-reg is where the user has re-regged to circumvent a ban - clearly in the present case, it is on public record that this poster was banned for re-regging to circumvent a thread ban.

    "outing" the user is, as you well know, only an issue where their personal identity could be outed.

    I don't know how you got that idea. Somebody who has a previous track record on the forum will get that carried over to the new username. If they behave themselves under the new account that'll never be a problem!
    I get that idea because it has actually happened.


  • #1904
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    We have both been mods on this site for a fair amount of time. We both know that creating a new account to circumvent a forum ban is not permitted.


    I can actually recall a thread in the moderators forum where the exception to not calling out a re-reg is where the user has re-regged to circumvent a ban - clearly in the present case, it is on public record that this poster was banned for re-regging to circumvent a thread ban.

    I don't know if it's public record, even it is, I'm not comfortable discussing this on a non-mods public thread. This matter was dealt with by the admins of the site so really, you need to take it up with them.

    Re-regs often come back from their bans and post away. If they turn over a new leaf and up their game, I've no problem with that, indeed I welcome it. Consistent trouble making re-regs are obviously a different matter entirely.
    "outing" the user is, as you well know, only an issue where their personal identity could be outed.

    It is an issue, what purpose does it serve? It turns threads off topic and personal and usually leads nowhere except a train wreck of a thread. Report suspected re-regs and let the politics mods look at it. This "calling out" nonsense is contributing to the mess that are some threads on here, petty, personal, childish near vendettas.
    I get that idea because it has actually happened.

    I think you picked up the wrong end of the stick tbh, and again, that isn't really a matter for here to discuss, more a general site wide issue or for the mods forums.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1905
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    Shinnerbot is a term in common usage online in Ireland. There are references on politics.ie dating back to 2011. Here are some examples where it is used:


    N!gger, fag and kyke are all in common usage, doesnt make them any less ignorant, lazy or hate filled.
    Godge wrote: »
    I found the definition in the last picture to be interesting:

    "Shinnerbots - the apparently ubiquitous Sinn Fein supporters who will type anything into the internet, however disgusting or untrue, to defend their party and it's glorious leader".


    Wow, you linked a load of forum comments and blogs, what in the hell was that intended to prove?
    And Newton Emmerson? Mother of Jesus.
    Godge wrote: »
    It is pretty clear that the above references and links demonstrate that the word is not a creation of boards.ie or the posters on it, is in common online use, and has a pretty simple description of the type of behaviour which attracts the label.

    Nobody said it was a creation of boards.ie, your strawmanning is unbelievable. Lots of words are in common usage, doesnt make them accurate or correct. This is the politics forum, if somebody says something you disagree with the charter requires you to challenge their views and present your own. But people like you dont do that, you cry "shinnerbot," a lazy, inaccurate personal attack.

    Godge wrote: »
    That wouldn't stop it from being derogatory. Shinnerbots exist,


    No, they dont, because it's a made up term that allows lazy, ignorant people to dismiss or ignore someone's opinion without having to actually engage with them.
    Godge wrote: »
    but so does homosexuality and there are many unacceptable derogatory references to and labels for homosexuality that would lead to a ban, but there are the alternative acceptable references and labels (such as the word homosexuality or LGBT etc.). Such derogatory references are also in breach of equality law.


    Gay is a perfectly acceptable word for a homosexual person. So you would have no problem with someone advocating gay rights online constantly being dismissed as nothing more than a gaybot. Not a person with an opinion that challenges your own, just a nameless faceless machine pumping out propaganda dreamed up by Gay HQ in san Francisco .
    Godge wrote: »
    However, none of that applies to shinnerbot. There is no common alternative to "shinnerbot" for the labelling of such behaviour and the use of it is not in breach of equality law.

    There is no common alternative because it's made up. It's a fantasy enemy created in the minds of people who simply cannot accept that the reason so many people are willing to defend SF online is simply because they are currently the most popular party in the country and so naturally, will have the most number of supporters online.

    Bottom line, it is lazy, ignorant, inaccurate, anathema to proper debate, a personal attack and were it not for the personal views of mods here wouldnt be allowed.
    Most tellingly, it shows the user of such a term up to be an uninformed, unimaginative moron who cannot counter what youre saying with facts or debate.


  • #1906
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,286 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Godge wrote: »
    Shinnerbot is a term in common usage online in Ireland. There are references on politics.ie dating back to 2011. Here are some examples where it is used:

    http://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/174539-martin-mcguinness-justifies-his-candidature-21.html


    http://www.thejournal.ie/profile/125140/no-its-amazing-shinnerbots-refer-anyone-doesnt-agree-1532184/

    https://youngcarson.wordpress.com/tag/shinnerbots/

    http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/shinnerbot/

    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/archive/index.php/t-23633.html


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1MSypdIYAAW65W.png

    I found the definition in the last picture to be interesting:

    "Shinnerbots - the apparently ubiquitous Sinn Fein supporters who will type anything into the internet, however disgusting or untrue, to defend their party and it's glorious leader".

    It is pretty clear that the above references and links demonstrate that the word is not a creation of boards.ie or the posters on it, is in common online use, and has a pretty simple description of the type of behaviour which attracts the label.

    That wouldn't stop it from being derogatory. Shinnerbots exist, but so does homosexuality and there are many unacceptable derogatory references to and labels for homosexuality that would lead to a ban, but there are the alternative acceptable references and labels (such as the word homosexuality or LGBT etc.). Such derogatory references are also in breach of equality law.

    However, none of that applies to shinnerbot. There is no common alternative to "shinnerbot" for the labelling of such behaviour and the use of it is not in breach of equality law.

    Protest too much?


  • #1907
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »



    There is no common alternative because it's made up. .


    The word is made up, but all words are made up, they just label something.

    The observable and identifiable behaviour behind the word is not made up and it deserves a label of some kind.

    We have seen it many times, including today, on this forum.


  • #1908
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    TBH, at this stage I think the term "shinnerbot" is more commonly used by those protesting its supposed use than anyone else. I honestly cant recall the last time I saw it being used in the Politics forum outside of the rules discussion thread by people who aren't members of SF and don't vote for SF and don't really know much about SF.

    Blueshirt, West Brit, 26 counties, free stater etc...those are all in more common use.


  • #1909
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Sand wrote: »
    TBH, at this stage I think the term "shinnerbot" is more commonly used by those protesting its supposed use than anyone else. I honestly cant recall the last time I saw it being used in the Politics forum outside of the rules discussion thread by people who aren't members of SF and don't vote for SF and don't really know much about SF.

    Blueshirt, West Brit, 26 counties, free stater etc...those are all in more common use.

    Drivel. Every time there's a thread that even mentions SF it comes up. In fact I find the exact opposite. Westbrit, as a term, is used on here 99% of the time by people protesting its use.


  • #1910
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    The word is made up, but all words are made up, they just label something.

    The observable and identifiable behaviour behind the word is not made up and it deserves a label of some kind.

    We have seen it many times, including today, on this forum.

    No, the famed "shinnerbot" itself is a complete fabrication, dreamed up in the minds of establishment people who cant accept SFs popularity, so they've invented this small cabal of shady bots who scour the web under a thousand different names looking for criticism of SF. It's ludicrous. If you support any other party, cause, pressure group or campaign it's fine. Support SF and youre a 'bot.'
    Grow up, engage with people in debate and stop taking the cheap, lazy, easy way out


  • #1911
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    No, the famed "shinnerbot" itself is a complete fabrication, dreamed up in the minds of establishment people who cant accept SFs popularity, so they've invented this small cabal of shady bots who scour the web under a thousand different names looking for criticism of SF. It's ludicrous. If you support any other party, cause, pressure group or campaign it's fine. Support SF and youre a 'bot.'
    Grow up, engage with people in debate and stop taking the cheap, lazy, easy way out
    Nonsense. Shinnerbots are so called because they vomit the party line ad nauseam without rational thought into the fact that what they are saying makes no sense. SF has no economic policy other than made-up numbers and wishy thinking; constantly repeating the same crap over and over isn't going to make it any more true.


  • Advertisement
  • #1912
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Nonsense. Shinnerbots are so called because they vomit the party line ad nauseam without rational thought into the fact that what they are saying makes no sense. SF has no economic policy other than made-up numbers and wishy thinking; constantly repeating the same crap over and over isn't going to make it any more true.

    Oh the irony


  • #1913
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Oh the irony
    Amazing contribution. I tend to source my posts with facts and evidence rather than spout nonsense all day. But I can see how this kind of contribution from you really shows why one ought not to be called a "shinnerbot" - nothing bot-like here at all.


  • #1914
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Amazing contribution. I tend to source my posts with facts and evidence rather than spout nonsense all day. But I can see how this kind of contribution from you really shows why one ought not to be called a "shinnerbot" - nothing bot-like here at all.

    Oh yea, cause yours there was choc-a-block with facts and figures. I was pointing out the irony in someone deriding the mythical "shinnerbots" for "constantly repeating the same crap over and over" when any discussion with you or your ilk about SF on this site is little more than hysterical cries of "Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill (until she fell out of vogue), whatabout(insert bomb here), If they get in power im leaving the country", or something about wonky/insane economics from the intelligentsia amongs your crew.
    You could play bingo with the cut and past crap the anti-SF crowd come out with here.

    May I also add I find it hilarious that Godge, king of the 'duck the issue and give snide one liner response' liked your post there


  • #1915
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Oh yea, cause yours there was choc-a-block with facts and figures. I was pointing out the irony in someone deriding the mythical "shinnerbots" for "constantly repeating the same crap over and over" when any discussion with you or your ilk about SF on this site is little more than hysterical cries of "Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill (until she fell out of vogue), whatabout(insert bomb here), If they get in power im leaving the country", or something about wonky/insane economics from the intelligentsia amongs your crew.
    You could play bingo with the cut and past crap the anti-SF crowd come out with here.

    May I also add I find it hilarious that Godge, king of the 'duck the issue and give snide one liner response' liked your post there


    We are back to the level of analysing who thanks which post, really the level of debate has reached a new level.

    I think you have got the wrong end of the stick here. I have posted many times pointing out the huge holes in SF's economic policies, explaining in detail why they don't work with statistics and links (e.g. three posts in the last day on the water thread when someone else first brought up SF). All I get in response is personal abuse, whataboutery, deflection, insult, accusations of bias etc. Not once has a credible post defended SF's economic policy. It is nuts and everyone knows that.


  • #1916
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    We are back to the level of analysing who thanks which post, really the level of debate has reached a new level.

    Cool your jets, it was one line at the end of a post as a post script highlighting some fairly blatant hypocrisy.
    Godge wrote: »
    I think you have got the wrong end of the stick here. I have posted many times pointing out the huge holes in SF's economic policies, explaining in detail why they don't work with statistics and links (e.g. three posts in the last day on the water thread when someone else first brought up SF). All I get in response is personal abuse, whataboutery, deflection, insult, accusations of bias etc. Not once has a credible post defended SF's economic policy. It is nuts and everyone knows that.

    I have always found the opposite to be true regarding yourself. I have corrected you numerous times in various threads with links and quotes or posited questions to you and 9 times out of 10 you either ignore them or just come back with a snide jab.

    Anyway, given that that's about you personally we can hardly debate it, you'll obviously deny that. So back to the issue at hand, "shinnerbot" is personal dehumanising abuse reserved only for SF supporters with the "bot" add on not being attributed to any other party or cause regardless of their enthusiasm. I've made my views on this quite clear a number of times so i dont see the point repeating it, particularly not when certain mods have agendas to pursue.


  • #1917
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Cool your jets, it was one line at the end of a post as a post script highlighting some fairly blatant hypocrisy.



    I have always found the opposite to be true regarding yourself. I have corrected you numerous times in various threads with links and quotes or posited questions to you and 9 times out of 10 you either ignore them or just come back with a snide jab.

    Anyway, given that that's about you personally we can hardly debate it, you'll obviously deny that. So back to the issue at hand, "shinnerbot" is personal dehumanising abuse reserved only for SF supporters with the "bot" add on not being attributed to any other party or cause regardless of their enthusiasm. I've made my views on this quite clear a number of times so i dont see the point repeating it, particularly not when certain mods have agendas to pursue.

    To be fair to you, while you are an obvious SF supporter, you would not be classified in my mind as a shinnerbot, so I can see why you take offence to the term. Your postings do not share the same type of nonsense as some of the others and there is substantive comment in most of it though you do tend to descend into personal abuse fairly easily.

    As to my not answering links or questions, the main thing I have refused to get involved in is the justification of the IRA terrorist campaign and so-called "community restorative justice". To me, that was completely unjustified. And indeed, the majority of the population of Northern Ireland and the majority of the nationalist population up North, and the overwhelming majority of people on this island refused to lend support to that murder campaign - that is evident in election after election during that period. There is no need to get into it further with arguments about who would have done what, where and when in Northern Ireland. The IRA campaign was unjustified, lacked public support and was more sickening because it was claimed to be done in our name.

    As for the cover-up of child sexual abuse and the kangaroo court system, don't go there with how wrong that was. From Garda McCabe to Jean McConville, there are a long list of horrific atrocities for which responsibility lies at the feet of many of the current members of Sinn Fein.

    The whole country knows this. Some choose to forget it, some of us don't. I am against terrorists, I am appalled at the shootings in France, it brought to mind very quickly Gerry Adams' remarks only a few short weeks ago about shooting journalists. He said it was a joke, well it was a very very sick joke as it turned out.


  • #1918
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    To be fair to you, while you are an obvious SF supporter, you would not be classified in my mind as a shinnerbot, so I can see why you take offence to the term. Your postings do not share the same type of nonsense as some of the others and there is substantive comment in most of it though you do tend to descend into personal abuse fairly easily.

    As to my not answering links or questions, the main thing I have refused to get involved in is the justification of the IRA terrorist campaign and so-called "community restorative justice". To me, that was completely unjustified.

    Completely unjustified? Really, completely? At a time when there was no police force worth speaking of. You would have let criminals run rampant? Imperfect and unpleasant certainly but completely unjustified?
    Godge wrote: »
    And indeed, the majority of the population of Northern Ireland and the majority of the nationalist population up North, and the overwhelming majority of people on this island refused to lend support to that murder campaign - that is evident in election after election during that period.

    Even republicans didnt take SF seriously as a political force until after the hungerstrikes. There was a war on, constitutional politics was a far distant second, which can be seen in the video of Martin McGuinness' first election victory in which he states that this really means very little and it will be the IRA that bring freedom. Elections cannot be seen as any indicator of IRA support.
    The fact is the IRA, as a guerilla army, simply could not have fought for as long as they did without significant support. Look at the border campaign. Petered out after 5 years and 17 deaths because it simply did not have public support. and there were plenty of people in other parties who at the very least sympathised with the IRA, didnt members of a Fianna Fail government try to import guns for the IRA.
    Elections are only indicative of support for the parties running, nothing else. As for the majority in the north being opposed to the campaign, well, yes, obviously a majority of people in a backwards artificial sectarian statelet set up specifically to guarantee a majority of pro-British lackeys will be anti-IRA.
    Godge wrote: »
    There is no need to get into it further with arguments about who would have done what, where and when in Northern Ireland. The IRA campaign was unjustified, lacked public support and was more sickening because it was claimed to be done in our name.

    I've already addressed the support issue, what im more concerned with here is this attitude you seem to have that the IRA got up one day and said "lets start a war." Check the timeline of the conflict. The IRA were the last to enter it and the first to call a stop to it. This was not an "IRA campaign" this was a British campaign with IRA resistance.
    Godge wrote: »
    As for the cover-up of child sexual abuse and the kangaroo court system, don't go there with how wrong that was.

    So for about the 100th time I will ask you, what were victims of abuse, who had no police force to turn to, expected to do? And when people brought these concerns to the IRA, what were the IRA to do? Just take their word for it and plug the accused? Or tell them to go to the police force that wanted nothing to do with them. Or, hold some sort of investigation as best they could?
    Godge wrote: »
    From Garda McCabe to Jean McConville, there are a long list of horrific atrocities for which responsibility lies at the feet of many of the current members of Sinn Fein.

    Who in Sinn Fein ordered the shoot of Garda McCabe? Nobody! it was a locally organised robbery during which volunteers panicked and fired. That in no way justifies it and even those responsible showed that when they relinquished their right to be released early under the GFA. But your attempt to claim that it was Sinn Fein responsible for it is disingenuous at best.
    As for Jean McConville, I'd say those who made here a tout in a staunchly republican area, even after she'd been caught once, were just as responsible for her death.
    Godge wrote: »
    The whole country knows this. Some choose to forget it, some of us don't.

    See, this is the problem with your posts. Earlier you claimed you always use quotes and links but you dont, this is the type of thing you post. Oh "everybody just knows."
    Me: Care to back that up
    Godge: Everybody knows.
    Me: Right
    Godge wrote: »
    I am against terrorists, I am appalled at the shootings in France, it brought to mind very quickly Gerry Adams' remarks only a few short weeks ago about shooting journalists. He said it was a joke, well it was a very very sick joke as it turned out.

    Bang! And there we have it. It never ceases to amaze me the absolute lows smearbots (hey, they exist after all) will stoop to in order to have any sort of dig at SF. The bodies in France are barely cold and already people like yourself can barely contain your glee at the opportunity to make some sort, any sort of link, no matter how tenuous or completely fabricated to Sinn Fein. You did the same thing with Mairia Cahill, paraded her around like a new toy until she fell out of vogue and ceased to be useful to you. Absolutely despicable and disgusting.


  • #1919
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Completely unjustified? Really, completely? At a time when there was no police force worth speaking of. You would have let criminals run rampant? Imperfect and unpleasant certainly but completely unjustified?



    Even republicans didnt take SF seriously as a political force until after the hungerstrikes. There was a war on, constitutional politics was a far distant second, which can be seen in the video of Martin McGuinness' first election victory in which he states that this really means very little and it will be the IRA that bring freedom. Elections cannot be seen as any indicator of IRA support.
    The fact is the IRA, as a guerilla army, simply could not have fought for as long as they did without significant support. Look at the border campaign. Petered out after 5 years and 17 deaths because it simply did not have public support. and there were plenty of people in other parties who at the very least sympathised with the IRA, didnt members of a Fianna Fail government try to import guns for the IRA.
    Elections are only indicative of support for the parties running, nothing else. As for the majority in the north being opposed to the campaign, well, yes, obviously a majority of people in a backwards artificial sectarian statelet set up specifically to guarantee a majority of pro-British lackeys will be anti-IRA.



    I've already addressed the support issue, what im more concerned with here is this attitude you seem to have that the IRA got up one day and said "lets start a war." Check the timeline of the conflict. The IRA were the last to enter it and the first to call a stop to it. This was not an "IRA campaign" this was a British campaign with IRA resistance.



    So for about the 100th time I will ask you, what were victims of abuse, who had no police force to turn to, expected to do? And when people brought these concerns to the IRA, what were the IRA to do? Just take their word for it and plug the accused? Or tell them to go to the police force that wanted nothing to do with them. Or, hold some sort of investigation as best they could?



    Who in Sinn Fein ordered the shoot of Garda McCabe? Nobody! it was a locally organised robbery during which volunteers panicked and fired. That in no way justifies it and even those responsible showed that when they relinquished their right to be released early under the GFA. But your attempt to claim that it was Sinn Fein responsible for it is disingenuous at best.
    As for Jean McConville, I'd say those who made here a tout in a staunchly republican area, even after she'd been caught once, were just as responsible for her death.



    See, this is the problem with your posts. Earlier you claimed you always use quotes and links but you dont, this is the type of thing you post. Oh "everybody just knows."
    Me: Care to back that up
    Godge: Everybody knows.
    Me: Right



    Bang! And there we have it. It never ceases to amaze me the absolute lows smearbots (hey, they exist after all) will stoop to in order to have any sort of dig at SF. The bodies in France are barely cold and already people like yourself can barely contain your glee at the opportunity to make some sort, any sort of link, no matter how tenuous or completely fabricated to Sinn Fein. You did the same thing with Mairia Cahill, paraded her around like a new toy until she fell out of vogue and ceased to be useful to you. Absolutely despicable and disgusting.

    He/she has an agenda.

    You're wasting you're time.


  • #1920
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Err, it's a discussion on the rules thread, not the troubles or SF and the IRA and going over the same endless stuff that happens on those.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #1921
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Pictures? yay or nay?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94018284&postcount=9


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement