The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

Seth Brundle

Rock Climber wrote: »

Eh?? Have his trips to the evidence box ended or something?

No. However, his trips to the tribunal so far have not seen him being fully cooperative in terms of revealing all details.

Critical clarification there..because he maintains that he thought he had supplied them with everything.

I don't know details of exactly what he handed over. However, based on what he told Brian Dobson and what has subsequently been revealed, e.g. various bank accounts, he can't have thought that he supplied them with everything.


Incidentally, he is coming out wiht the follwoing:

Every Fianna Fáil Government minister broke down crying when Bertie Ahern told them he was standing down as their leader, he also revealed today.

The outgoing Taoiseach said he asked to be let out of the room when all his party colleagues in the Cabinet wept collectively as he briefed them of his shock resignation on Wednesday morning.

“It was the first time in my life I wanted to get out a Fianna Fáil meeting quick, when all the men and all the women were collectively crying,” he said.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojgbeyojcw/
Pass me the sick bag!

Rock Climber

kbannon wrote: »

No. However, his trips to the tribunal so far have not seen him being fully cooperative in terms of revealing all details.
I don't know details of exactly what he handed over. However, based on what he told Brian Dobson and what has subsequently been revealed, e.g. various bank accounts, he can't have thought that he supplied them with everything.

Thats a matter of opinion.I've already given one on that as I said in 387.
This is all very repetitive at this stage.

Incidentally, he is coming out wiht the follwoing:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojgbeyojcw/
Pass me the sick bag!

I think I said something already about being judgemental.
If people cannot be allowed to have some affection for their party leader or anyone then I'm afraid this is being taken to a level waaaaay beyond where it should be.
The fact of the matter is, that Bertie is well liked amongst those that know him well.Those peers aren't being adverse in their views about him.
I do know Charley Bird said something the other day about some of them saying in private that it might be best for him to stand down.
They were right in that respect if (as is likely but wasn't made clear in the comment) they were talking about the need for him to remove himself from the distraction and the associated hassle for his political party whilst matters were being sorted out.
It was inevitable that when he'd be taking a decision like that of course,that he wouldn't be going back given his desire to leave the Dáil by the next election.

Akrasia

kbannon wrote: »

No. However, his trips to the tribunal so far have not seen him being fully cooperative in terms of revealing all details.
I don't know details of exactly what he handed over. However, based on what he told Brian Dobson and what has subsequently been revealed, e.g. various bank accounts, he can't have thought that he supplied them with everything.


Incidentally, he is coming out wiht the follwoing:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojgbeyojcw/
Pass me the sick bag!

He's an even bigger hero than Jesus.

Perhaps he's touting for a made for tv movie? (his daughter could write the screenplay)

Rock Climber

Ah for heavens sake.
Talk about being proved right easily in front of my eyes on the judgementalism and the bias..

I rest my case on that score unless some of ye want to go down the tireless rebutter route?

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Ah for heavens sake.
Talk about being proved right easily in front of my eyes on the judgementalism and the bias..

I rest my case on that score unless some of ye want to go down the tireless rebutter route?

Oh come on, he was writing his own eulogy and doing it in a shameless way. Bill Cullen would have been proud.

I would have made the same comment if anyone had said those things in that context. (am i biased about everyone? Is that even possible?)

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

Oh come on, he was writing his own eulogy and doing it in a shameless way. Bill Cullen would have been proud.

I would have made the same comment if anyone had said those things in that context. (am i biased about everyone? Is that even possible?)

Thats a deflection that doesn't negate the judgementalism I've observed here given that I'm accepting (all along) the rightfull holding of opinions but not the factuality of them.
It's a fact that the opinion you're espousing exists but the opinion itself may not necessarally be fact albeit it's just as much your entitlement to hold it (as much as it is to be judgemental aswell for that matter) as it is mine to take the differing view I'm espousing on the matter.

tech77

Rock Climber wrote: »

Godwin anyone?

Oh for Christ sake.
Can't you see the guys analogy pertained to the OBVIOUSNESS of the two things being compared, NOT THEIR HEINOUSNESS.

He even (needlessly) stated that he wasn't comparing Bertie with Hitler.

Who in their right minds would infer from
his analogy a likeness between Between Bertie and Hitler.
Poor aul' Bertie's not that bad...

You seem to be "conveniently" missing his point- ie a completely valid comparison between their OBVIOUSNESS.

Godwin's Law is when someone compares something/someone directly to the HEINOUSNESS of Naziism/Hitler.
Something he didn't do.

Yet again more obfuscation!

Rock Climber

I've been debating long enough to know when to mention Godwin and that was a reasonable use of it,especially given the history of Hitler being what it is to form an opinion on him versus the history of Bertie to form an opinion on Bertie.

I'm also well aware of the meaning of the word obfuscation.
Suffice it to say as I've been clear in my descriptions of what I'm see'ing in this thread throughout,it's far from obfuscation.
I can understand the frustration in meeting an alternative viewpoint though.
Palpable isn't it?

tech77

Rock Climber wrote: »

I've been debating long enough to know when to mention Godwin and that was a reasonable use of it,especially given the history of Hitler being what it is to form an opinion on him versus the history of Bertie to form an opinion on Bertie.

Your invocation of Godwin's Law was wrong.
It wasn't apt because the analogy was comparing OBVIOUSNESS not HEINOUSNESS.

Don't you get that the elements under comparison were OBVIOUSNESS.
A comparison of HEINOUSNESS is a prerequisite for an invocation for Godwin's Law.

Why can't you see that?

But of course I suspect your erroneous inference from his analogy is being deliberately employed for emotive purposes, not out of a genuine failure to grasp it (atleast second time round anyway).

It's like arguing with a particularly obtuse wall...

Akrasia

tech77 wrote: »

Your invocation of Godwin's Law was wrong.
It wasn't apt because the analogy was comparing OBVIOUSNESS not HEINOUSNESS.

Don't you get that the elements under comparison were OBVIOUSNESS.
A comparison of HEINOUSNESS is a prerequisite for an invocation for Godwin's Law.

Why can't you see that?

But of course I suspect your erroneous inference from his analogy is being deliberately employed for emotive purposes, not out of a genuine failure to grasp it (atleast second time round anyway).

It's like arguing with a particularly obtuse wall...

Exactly, If I had said the exact same thing using the example of Pol Pot, but not hitler, godwins 'law' would not apply.

RC appears to be using this silly little internet cliche as an excuse to avoid the substantive issue.

There is no such law as 'godwins law' its just something an internet person made up a decade ago. Its amazing how 'rational' people like RC are so quick to invoke a made up 'law' while still demanding utmost intellectual consistency and rigour from everyone who he argues against (but doesn't apply those exact same criteria for himself)

oscarBravo

This thread is closed again, as promised. You were given the opportunity to discuss the topic like grown-ups and decided not to. Fine.