Eircom investigation on Tom McGurk show

Xian

[It would appear to be the way of all "divorces" that there remains some loose ends to tie up]

Originally posted by De Rebel
Arguably, IOFFLs most influential period (and Im sticking my neck out here) was during the period of David Longs stewardship. David was a lobbyist in the classic mould, and one of the best Ive seen in action mainly because he had a backbone and beliefs, qualities lacking in many lobbyists. He certainly outmanoeuvred many bigger guns. His non confrontational style, where he listened, argued and reasoned impressed many and gave IOFFL unprecedented access to the corridors of power. I will readily admit to being frustrated by his reasonableness at times, but it certainly got IOFFL listened to, and got our objectives not just a hearing, but saw the minister making our objectives his own and delivering on a number of the key ones. And thats not just my opinion, I've heard similar opinions being voiced by those on the dark side.

Ah. "Nice Guy Dave" as they used to call him. Given my recessive diplomacy gene, it would have been too much to expect me to follow in those footsteps. Adam has suggested that he himself would follow a different tack himself. That's not the issue - see below.

In addition, not having been on the committee at that stage, you won't have been aware of the amount of support from the committee necessary to propel him to those same corridors. Reports, research, documentation and consultation responses weren't pulled out of a hat, ye know.

I am not suggesting capitulation, or some retarded namby-pamby sit in the corner and speak when we are spoken to approach.

... or posting on a bulletin board.

My agenda was community networks, which didn't entail dealing with the "dark side". However, given the flagging committee support for the agenda, the only option open to me to present the idea to the government, lobby for its implementation, travel the length and breadth of the country canvassing support and the necessary expertise to give it substance, secure (arguably) funding for the initiative, see through a flagship project demonstrating the feasibility of the model, making all possible contact with the government when the implementation of the funding is deemed wrong, upbraiding the minister when this advice is ignored and having the error corrected to some degree, and finally incorporating the entity necessary to realise the objective.

But you know all that yourself.

We need the power of our convictions and the will and the energy to communicate them effectively.

As you say, the courage of your convictions is needed. Are you, for instance, willing to state on a public platform, far from the comfort of your computer screen, that ComReg should be subsumed into the DCMNR?

My opinion on whether this commitment remains is known, hence (among other reasons already explained) the motion to disband. That you've put yourself forward means you think different. The onus is therefore on you to push through an agenda that will achieve the objective of affordable Internet access through to its conclusion, to prove me wrong.

De Rebel

Just to be clear and to deal with a few of the responses I received today, here and elsewhere,

I was NOT denigrating any of the former chairmen or the interim chairman
I was NOT advocating that David Long be reappointed as chairman
I was NOT trying to conduct some objective analysis of who was the best ever chairman

I was simply trying to draw a comparison between the likely effects of talking to the powers that be on the one hand and calling them fat fùcks on the other.

spongebob

De Rebel is always right and never more so than when he gives out to me.

This is my second assurance that I will be in good behaviour mode ...already.... today.

M

DMT

TmB wrote:

Tom is in Marian Finucane's slot at the moment (oo er...)

ROTFLMAO!!